Skip to content

add variant of Fubini lemmas and rename to clarify #1651

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

affeldt-aist
Copy link
Member

Motivation for this change

When working on the sampling branch, we realized that we need variants of existing Fubini lemmas but adding these variants was no compatible with the current naming scheme. This PR introduces the variants and change the naming scheme to something easier to comprehend.

Checklist
  • added corresponding entries in CHANGELOG_UNRELEASED.md

- [ ] added corresponding documentation in the headers

Reference: How to document

Merge policy

As a rule of thumb:

  • PRs with several commits that make sense individually and that
    all compile are preferentially merged into master.
  • PRs with disorganized commits are very likely to be squash-rebased.
Reminder to reviewers

Co-authored-by: Alessandro Bruni <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Cyril Cohen <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Pierre Roux <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Takafumi Saikawa <[email protected]>
@affeldt-aist affeldt-aist requested review from hoheinzollern, Tragicus, t6s, proux01 and CohenCyril and removed request for Tragicus June 24, 2025 15:39
Copy link
Member

@t6s t6s left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The new names are terrible, but since they are longer, it is easy to note where those terrible names occur. I think therefore this PR is good.

By the way, I noticed that the header comment contains typos "measure measure".

Suggestions for future changes:
We will not need to maintain two definitions of product measures as first-class; instead we can define the product measure by sval ("existence of an extension that satisfies μ(A x B) = μ1(A)μ2(B)").
In many cases where both μ1 and μ2 are σ-finite (Section fubini, for example), this definition will not cause problems thanks to the uniqueness lemmas.
product_measure1 and product_measure2 in the current code then should be given more specific name, possibly along with other definitions of a product measure (https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/70888/uniqueness-of-product-measure-non-sigma-finite-case).

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