Measure theory 1.2.2: Exercises 1.2.18 and 1.2.22 have two parts, not three - #632
Merged
Conversation
… three Both exercises are split across three Lean declarations, and #574 labelled the third of each as part (iii). But in the text each exercise has only two parts, and it is part (ii) that carries two conclusions: Exercise 1.2.18(ii): "Show that m_*(E) <= m^*(E), and that equality holds if and only if E is Lebesgue measurable." Exercise 1.2.22(ii): "Show that E x F is Lebesgue measurable, with m(E x F) = m(E) m(F)." So inner_measure.eq_iff and Lebesgue_measure.prod are the second halves of part (ii), not parts of their own. Relabel them (ii'), following the convention already used for Exercise 1.3.8(vi')/(vi'') in 7a9e513. Exercise 1.2.24 does have four parts in the text, so its (i)-(iv) labels are correct and are left alone. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
1 task
Chessing234
added a commit
to Chessing234/analysis
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 3, 2026
Text has two questions in one exercise; follow the primed-variant convention from 7a9e513. Leave 1.2.22 to teorth#632.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Owner
Author
|
Heads-up on interaction with #621, which spaces the Verso docstring closers in this same file: both PRs touch the I have made this branch's version the fully-correct end state — |
1 task
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Follow-up to #574, checked against An Introduction to Measure Theory.
Each of these exercises is split across three Lean declarations, and #574 labelled the third of each as part
(iii). But in the text each has only two parts — it is part (ii) that carries two conclusions.Exercise 1.2.18 (Inner measure), §1.2.2 p. 40:
So
inner_measure.leis the first half of (ii) andinner_measure.eq_iffis the second half.Exercise 1.2.22, §1.2.2 p. 41:
So
LebesgueMeasurable.prodis the first half of (ii) andLebesgue_measure.prodis the second half.Relabelled both as
(ii'), following the convention already chosen for Exercise 1.3.8(vi')/(vi'')in 7a9e513 — primed variants of the real part label, rather than inventing a part the text does not have.I also checked Exercise 1.2.24 while I was here: it genuinely has four parts (i)–(iv) in the text, matching the equivalence relation, the complete metric, the closure statement, and the continuous extension. Its labels are correct and are left untouched.
Docstring-only change; no Lean code is touched.