Skip to content

doc(Probability/HasLaw): mention MeasurePreserving in the docstring#39608

Open
EtienneC30 wants to merge 1 commit into
leanprover-community:masterfrom
EtienneC30:doc_haslaw
Open

doc(Probability/HasLaw): mention MeasurePreserving in the docstring#39608
EtienneC30 wants to merge 1 commit into
leanprover-community:masterfrom
EtienneC30:doc_haslaw

Conversation

@EtienneC30

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Open in Gitpod

@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown

PR summary 1b8f449241

Import changes for modified files

No significant changes to the import graph

Import changes for all files
Files Import difference

Declarations diff

No declarations were harmed in the making of this PR! 🐙

You can run this locally as follows
## from your `mathlib4` directory:
git clone https://github.com/leanprover-community/mathlib-ci.git ../mathlib-ci

## summary with just the declaration names:
../mathlib-ci/scripts/pr_summary/declarations_diff.sh <optional_commit>

## more verbose report:
../mathlib-ci/scripts/pr_summary/declarations_diff.sh long <optional_commit>

The doc-module for scripts/pr_summary/declarations_diff.sh in the mathlib-ci repository contains some details about this script.


No changes to strong technical debt.
No changes to weak technical debt.

@jvanwinden

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Maybe you could also add a comment in the docstring of MeasurePreserving to point to HasLaw?

we often use almost-everywhere equality and only need a.e.-measurability hypotheses.
However, if one wants to state `HasLaw f μ P` for a certain explicit function `f` that is not
only `AEMeasurable` but `Measurable`, then one should state `MeasureTheory.MeasurePreserving f P μ`
instead and rely on lemmas in this file that link the two notions.

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.

Suggested change
instead and rely on lemmas in this file that link the two notions.
instead and rely on `MeasureTheory.MeasurePreserving.hasLaw` and `HasLaw.measurePreserving` to convert between the two notions.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

There is also MeasureTheory.MeasurePreserving.comp_hasLaw which I think is actually more useful.

we often use almost-everywhere equality and only need a.e.-measurability hypotheses.
However, if one wants to state `HasLaw f μ P` for a certain explicit function `f` that is not
only `AEMeasurable` but `Measurable`, then one should state `MeasureTheory.MeasurePreserving f P μ`
instead and rely on lemmas in this file that link the two notions. -/

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.

same as above

Suggested change
instead and rely on lemmas in this file that link the two notions. -/
instead and rely on `MeasureTheory.MeasurePreserving.hasLaw` and `HasLaw.measurePreserving` to convert between the two notions. -/

@RemyDegenne RemyDegenne added the awaiting-author A reviewer has asked the author a question or requested changes. label May 26, 2026
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. documentation Improvements or additions to documentation t-measure-probability Measure theory / Probability theory

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants