Skip to content

Measure theory 1.2.2: Exercises 1.2.18 and 1.2.22 have two parts, not three - #632

Merged
teorth merged 2 commits into
mainfrom
fix/measure-1-2-18-1-2-22-part-labels
Aug 3, 2026
Merged

Measure theory 1.2.2: Exercises 1.2.18 and 1.2.22 have two parts, not three#632
teorth merged 2 commits into
mainfrom
fix/measure-1-2-18-1-2-22-part-labels

Conversation

@teorth

@teorth teorth commented Aug 3, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

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:

(i) Show that this definition is well defined, i.e. that if A, A′ are two elementary sets containing E, that m(A) − m*(A\E) is equal to m(A′) − m*(A′\E).
(ii) Show that m_*(E) ≤ m*(E), and that equality holds if and only if E is Lebesgue measurable.

So inner_measure.le is the first half of (ii) and inner_measure.eq_iff is the second half.

Exercise 1.2.22, §1.2.2 p. 41:

(i) If E ⊂ R^d and F ⊂ R^{d′}, show that (m^{d+d′})*(E × F) ≤ (m^d)*(E)(m^{d′})*(F)
(ii) Let E ⊂ R^d, F ⊂ R^{d′} be Lebesgue measurable sets. Show that E × F ⊂ R^{d+d′} is Lebesgue measurable, with m^{d+d′}(E × F) = m^d(E) · m^{d′}(F).

So LebesgueMeasurable.prod is the first half of (ii) and Lebesgue_measure.prod is 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.

… 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>
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>
@teorth

teorth commented Aug 3, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner Author

Heads-up on interaction with #621, which spaces the Verso docstring closers in this same file: both PRs touch the Exercise 1.2.22(iii) line, so whichever lands second will need a one-line rebase.

I have made this branch's version the fully-correct end state — /-- Exercise 1.2.22(ii'"'"') (Product measure formula) -/, i.e. both the relabel and the closer space — so if there is a conflict, taking this side is the right resolution. The other two 1.2.22 closers in #621 are untouched here and unaffected.

@teorth
teorth merged commit 56746d4 into main Aug 3, 2026
2 checks passed
@teorth
teorth deleted the fix/measure-1-2-18-1-2-22-part-labels branch August 3, 2026 19:06
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant