Skip to content

feat: Generalize assumptions in liminf and limsup results in ENNReals#15115

Open
kkytola wants to merge 51 commits intomasterfrom
kkytola/ENNReal_liminf_limsup_improvement
Open

feat: Generalize assumptions in liminf and limsup results in ENNReals#15115
kkytola wants to merge 51 commits intomasterfrom
kkytola/ENNReal_liminf_limsup_improvement

Conversation

@kkytola
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@kkytola kkytola commented Jul 24, 2024

In a review comment it was pointed out that results about liminf and limsup in ENNReal hold under milder assumptions. This PR does the generalization.


This PR is split off from #13938, where the review comment was made. The changes needed for the suggested generalization were of different kind than the simple PR's content, justifying a separate PR.

Open in Gitpod

@ghost ghost removed the blocked-by-other-PR This PR depends on another PR (this label is automatically managed by a bot) label Aug 6, 2024
@ghost
Copy link
Copy Markdown

ghost commented Aug 6, 2024

This PR/issue depends on:

@j-loreaux
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@kkytola these proofs could use some cleaning up. For example, there is a have oops somewhere, lots of non-terminal simp calls, and in general they just seem overly complicated. Maybe there are still some lemmas that can be factored out to improve things? I didn't look carefully yet. If you have trouble doing this, let me know and I'll help out.

@j-loreaux j-loreaux added the awaiting-author A reviewer has asked the author a question or requested changes. label Aug 7, 2024
@kkytola
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

kkytola commented Aug 7, 2024

@kkytola these proofs could use some cleaning up. For example, there is a have oops somewhere, lots of non-terminal simp calls, and in general they just seem overly complicated. Maybe there are still some lemmas that can be factored out to improve things? I didn't look carefully yet. If you have trouble doing this, let me know and I'll help out.

Sorry about this! I had apparently completely forgotten to clean up this part of the refactor which finally obtained the requested generalization. (The only defensible bit in the code is that the variable name oops was for the final observation to reach a contradiction, so I actually view the variable name here as descriptive, and would prefer to keep unless style strictly prohibits it.)

The code was in a terrible shape and not ready for review, indeed --- apologies again. I will clean it up!

@kkytola kkytola removed the awaiting-author A reviewer has asked the author a question or requested changes. label Aug 7, 2024
@j-loreaux
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

No problem, thanks!

@ghost ghost added the merge-conflict The PR has a merge conflict with master, and needs manual merging. (this label is managed by a bot) label Aug 16, 2024
@leanprover-community-bot-assistant leanprover-community-bot-assistant removed the merge-conflict The PR has a merge conflict with master, and needs manual merging. (this label is managed by a bot) label Aug 30, 2024
have xs_bdd : ∀ᶠ i in F, xs i ≤ ENNReal.ofReal b := by
filter_upwards [ev_ne_top, hb] with i ne_top le_b
exact (ENNReal.le_ofReal_iff_toReal_le ne_top (le_trans toReal_nonneg le_b)).mpr le_b
have oops := limsup_eq_top ▸ limsup_le_of_le ⟨0, by simp⟩ xs_bdd
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Oops

@Ruben-VandeVelde Ruben-VandeVelde added the awaiting-author A reviewer has asked the author a question or requested changes. label Sep 11, 2024
@leanprover-community-bot-assistant leanprover-community-bot-assistant added the merge-conflict The PR has a merge conflict with master, and needs manual merging. (this label is managed by a bot) label Sep 17, 2024
@grunweg
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

grunweg commented Apr 15, 2025

Coming here for PR triage: is this PR still relevant? If so, can you merge master and address the review comments, please? (Otherwise, you can also label with help-wanted, to signal that help updating this would be welcome.)

@kkytola
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

kkytola commented Apr 20, 2025

Coming here for PR triage: is this PR still relevant? If so, can you merge master and address the review comments, please? (Otherwise, you can also label with help-wanted, to signal that help updating this would be welcome.)

I think this is still relevant if we want characterizations of convergence in distribution (weak convergence of probability measures) over general filters in Mathlib (although that is unfortunately blocked by a few other trivial preliminaries, too).

Merging master looks nontrivial (already the couple of merge-bumps last summer bitrot quite fast), maybe starting from scratch is more realistic. If it would be clear whether this generalization is in principle wanted with this approach, then I could try to return to this in the summer. For now I will mark the PR as "help-wanted".

@kkytola kkytola added the help-wanted The author needs attention to resolve issues label Apr 20, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

awaiting-author A reviewer has asked the author a question or requested changes. help-wanted The author needs attention to resolve issues merge-conflict The PR has a merge conflict with master, and needs manual merging. (this label is managed by a bot) t-order Order theory t-topology Topological spaces, uniform spaces, metric spaces, filters

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants