-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 299
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[Merged by Bors] - feat(measure_theory/measure_space): add ae_imp_iff #6218
Conversation
@@ -305,6 +305,9 @@ instance : countable_Inter_filter μ.ae := | |||
exact measure_Union_null (subtype.forall.2 hS) | |||
end⟩ | |||
|
|||
lemma ae_imp_iff {p : α → Prop} {q : Prop} : (∀ᵐ x ∂μ, q → p x) ↔ (q → ∀ᵐ x ∂μ, p x) := |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Wouldn't it be better if the names matched? I.e., ae_imp_distrib_left
? But I am not sure I get the point of the lemma: we have a whole interface for eventually
, and we won't copy every lemma for ae
(maybe just the most important ones). Is this a lemma you will use several times in the ae version?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I had statements of the form "forall a, forall b, prop1 a -> prop2 b -> ae prop3 x", and wanted to get the almost everywhere out of all implications and forall. For the forall there is the lemma ae_all_iff
, and I thought it strange that there was no similarly named lemma for the implications. I got the impression that those ae lemmas were here so that the user of measure.ae does not have to use filters.
But I also understand the point of not replicating everything and to only provide new lemmas in cases where for example countability is used.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
and there is already ae_ball_iff
, which does something similar to what I wanted, but I could not get it to apply.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The ae_*
lemmas are here for historical reasons: they were there before filter.eventually
was added to mathlib
. You can directly apply lemmas about filter.eventually
because ∀ᵐ a ∂ μ
is a notation, not a definition.
ok, the fact that other similar lemmas for ae are already there is convincing. Choose the name you like most, and then you can merge. |
✌️ RemyDegenne can now approve this pull request. To approve and merge a pull request, simply reply with |
bors r+ |
This is `filter.eventually_imp_distrib_left` specialized to the measure.ae filter.
Pull request successfully merged into master. Build succeeded: |
This is `filter.eventually_imp_distrib_left` specialized to the measure.ae filter.
This is
filter.eventually_imp_distrib_left
specialized to the measure.ae filter.