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(UniformConvergenceTopology): add UniformOnFun.uniformity_eq
etc
#10784
Conversation
rw [← uniformContinuous_iff] | ||
exact UniformFun.precomp_uniformContinuous | ||
(hf : MapsTo (f '' ·) 𝔗 𝔖) : | ||
UniformContinuous fun g : α →ᵤ[𝔖] β => ofFun 𝔗 (toFun 𝔖 g ∘ f) := by |
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 made the proof much shorter. Should I restore some of the comments?
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.
TBH I'm a bit sad to see my proof go, mostly because I like this kind of argument, but I have no objective argument for keeping it (I suggested a slight golf though). As for comments, I'd say you could just add the following at the beginning of the proof, to match more accurately the new version:
-- This follows from the fact that `(— ∘ f) × (— ∘ f)` maps `gen (f '' t) V` to `gen t V`.
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.
Thanks and sorry for the delay.
bors d+
rw [← uniformContinuous_iff] | ||
exact UniformFun.precomp_uniformContinuous | ||
(hf : MapsTo (f '' ·) 𝔗 𝔖) : | ||
UniformContinuous fun g : α →ᵤ[𝔖] β => ofFun 𝔗 (toFun 𝔖 g ∘ f) := by |
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.
TBH I'm a bit sad to see my proof go, mostly because I like this kind of argument, but I have no objective argument for keeping it (I suggested a slight golf though). As for comments, I'd say you could just add the following at the beginning of the proof, to match more accurately the new version:
-- This follows from the fact that `(— ∘ f) × (— ∘ f)` maps `gen (f '' t) V` to `gen t V`.
✌️ urkud can now approve this pull request. To approve and merge a pull request, simply reply with |
Co-authored-by: Anatole Dedecker <anatolededecker@gmail.com>
As this PR is labelled bors merge |
#10784) - Add `UniformOnFun.uniformity_eq` etc: the `HasBasis` statements need more assumptions. - Add missing `toFun`/`ofFun`. - Golf using new lemmas.
Pull request successfully merged into master. Build succeeded: |
UniformOnFun.uniformity_eq
etcUniformOnFun.uniformity_eq
etc
#10784) - Add `UniformOnFun.uniformity_eq` etc: the `HasBasis` statements need more assumptions. - Add missing `toFun`/`ofFun`. - Golf using new lemmas.
#10784) - Add `UniformOnFun.uniformity_eq` etc: the `HasBasis` statements need more assumptions. - Add missing `toFun`/`ofFun`. - Golf using new lemmas.
UniformOnFun.uniformity_eq
etc:the
HasBasis
statements need more assumptions.toFun
/ofFun
.