Skip to content

fix: label Example 11.5.5 / Cor. 11.5.2 sharpness; tidy Lusin docstring - #625

Open
Chessing234 wants to merge 3 commits into
teorth:mainfrom
Chessing234:fix/section-11-5-labels-and-lusin-typo
Open

fix: label Example 11.5.5 / Cor. 11.5.2 sharpness; tidy Lusin docstring#625
Chessing234 wants to merge 3 commits into
teorth:mainfrom
Chessing234:fix/section-11-5-labels-and-lusin-typo

Conversation

@Chessing234

@Chessing234 Chessing234 commented Aug 3, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Summary

  • Part-label Example 11.5.5 (a)–(e)
  • Label the two 1/x examples as Corollary 11.5.2 (sharpness) (a)/(b) — they formalize the remark after the corollary, not Exercise 11.5.1
  • Tidy the Exercise 1.3.23 Lusin docstring spacing

Test plan

  • CI build green

@teorth

teorth commented Aug 3, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Holding this one — the Example 11.5.5 (a)(e) labels and the Lusin docstring spacing fix are both fine, but the Exercise 11.5.1 (a)/(b) labels on the two 1/x examples are pointing at the wrong item, and would collide with a correct existing use.

Checking §11.5 against ch11.tex, the order is:

  • Corollary 11.5.2 — continuous on [a,b] ⟹ Riemann integrable
  • a remark: "Note that this Corollary is not true if [a,b] is replaced by any other sort of interval… For instance, the function f: (0,1) → R defined by f(x) := 1/x is continuous but not Riemann integrable."
  • Proposition 11.5.3 — continuous and bounded ⟹ integrable
  • Proposition 11.5.4 — piecewise continuous and bounded ⟹ integrable
  • Exercise 11.5.1 = "Prove Proposition 11.5.4"
  • Exercise 11.5.2 = f continuous non-negative with ∫ f = 0f = 0

So the two 1/x examples formalize the remark after Corollary 11.5.2, not Exercise 11.5.1. And Section_11_5.lean:216 already carries /-- Proposition 11.5.6 / Exercise 11.5.1 -/, which is the correct home for that exercise — so this PR would introduce a duplicate Exercise 11.5.1, which is the opposite of what the labelling pass is for.

Something like /-- Corollary 11.5.2 (sharpness) -/ on both, or a Remark-flavoured label, would fit better; your call on wording.

For the record, I made exactly this mistake myself in a PR I subsequently withdrew (#620) — I had labelled the same two examples Exercise 11.5.1 without checking. Sorry for any part that had in steering you toward it.

Drop the two Exercise 11.5.1 hunks and the rest is ready to go.

@Chessing234

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

dropped the ex 11.5.1 labels on the 1/x examples and marked them as cor 11.5.2 sharpness instead; example 11.5.5 + lusin bits unchanged.

@Chessing234
Chessing234 force-pushed the fix/section-11-5-labels-and-lusin-typo branch from 3dbec62 to c2f07fe Compare August 4, 2026 13:52
@Chessing234 Chessing234 changed the title fix: label Ex. 11.5.1/Example 11.5.5; tidy Lusin docstring fix: label Example 11.5.5 / Cor. 11.5.2 sharpness; tidy Lusin docstring Aug 4, 2026
@Chessing234

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@teorth ready for another look — dropped the ex 11.5.1 labels and marked those as cor 11.5.2 sharpness.

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.

2 participants