[Merged by Bors] - refactor(Analysis/Calculus/FormalMultilinearSeries): generalize to additive monoids #9467
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
eric-wieser
added
awaiting-review
awaiting-CI
leanprover-community-mathlib4-bot
added
the
merge-conflict
leanprover-community-mathlib4-bot
removed
the
merge-conflict
Member
Author
|
!bench |
github-actions
bot
removed
the
awaiting-CI
Collaborator
|
Here are the benchmark results for commit ee16fce. Benchmark Metric Change
==========================================================================
- ~Mathlib.Analysis.Analytic.Basic instructions 12.0%
- ~Mathlib.Analysis.Analytic.CPolynomial instructions 13.2%
- ~Mathlib.Analysis.Calculus.ContDiff.Basic instructions 6.5%
- ~Mathlib.Analysis.Calculus.ContDiff.Defs instructions 10.3%
+ ~Mathlib.Analysis.Calculus.FormalMultilinearSeries instructions -14.6% |
leanprover-community-mathlib4-bot
added
the
merge-conflict
…ditive monoids While many of the lemmas cease to apply, the definitions of sequences and their sums are still perfectly well-behaved in additive monoids; no negation is needed. We could use this to generalize `NormedSpace.exp` such that it works with `NNReal`, but unless leanprover-community/mathlib3#16554 or similar lands and provides a `DivisionSemiring.nnqsmul` field, that would conflict with #8370.
YaelDillies
force-pushed
the
eric-wieser/exp-ennreal
branch
from
ee16fce to
2fa0dbc
Compare
github-actions
bot
removed
the
merge-conflict
YaelDillies
approved these changes
Feb 18, 2025
Collaborator
YaelDillies
left a comment
YaelDillies
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I rebased to get rid of a conflict. Looks good to me.
maintainer merge
PR summary 1b91388834Import changes for modified filesNo significant changes to the import graph Import changes for all files
Declarations diff
You can run this locally as follows## summary with just the declaration names:
./scripts/declarations_diff.sh <optional_commit>
## more verbose report:
./scripts/declarations_diff.sh long <optional_commit>The doc-module for No changes to technical debt.You can run this locally as
|
|
🚀 Pull request has been placed on the maintainer queue by YaelDillies. |
github-actions
bot
added
the
maintainer-merge
Member
|
!bench |
adomani
reviewed
Feb 18, 2025
Co-authored-by: damiano <adomani@gmail.com>
adomani
reviewed
Feb 18, 2025
Collaborator
adomani
left a comment
adomani
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks like I was not completely thorough re-generalising! 😄
Collaborator
|
Here are the benchmark results for commit 2fa0dbc. Benchmark Metric Change
=========================================================================
- ~Mathlib.Analysis.Analytic.Basic instructions 17.4%
- ~Mathlib.Analysis.Analytic.CPolynomial instructions 17.9%
- ~Mathlib.Analysis.Analytic.Constructions instructions 15.6%
- ~Mathlib.Analysis.Calculus.ContDiff.Basic instructions 8.0%
- ~Mathlib.Analysis.Calculus.ContDiff.Defs instructions 17.2%
- ~Mathlib.Analysis.Calculus.ContDiff.FTaylorSeries instructions 9.0%
- ~Mathlib.Analysis.Calculus.ContDiff.FaaDiBruno instructions 8.6%
- ~Mathlib.Analysis.Calculus.FDeriv.Analytic instructions 4.9% |
2 files, Instructions +22.0⬝10⁹
2 files, Instructions +5.0⬝10⁹
2 files, Instructions +1.0⬝10⁹
|
adomani
reviewed
Feb 18, 2025
Collaborator
|
I like where this PR is going: I would like not to have to worry about the slow-downs! |
Member
|
I also like this PR. I wrote a quick message here to check that we should merge this despite the performance regression. |
Collaborator
|
Btw, the |
j-loreaux
approved these changes
Feb 19, 2025
Collaborator
j-loreaux
left a comment
j-loreaux
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm in favor of this despite the slowdowns.
Member
|
bors merge |
leanprover-community-mathlib4-bot
added
ready-to-merge
mathlib-bors bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 19, 2025
…ditive monoids (#9467) While many of the lemmas cease to apply, the definitions of sequences and their sums are still perfectly well-behaved in additive monoids; no negation is needed. Co-authored-by: Yaël Dillies <yael.dillies@gmail.com>
Contributor
|
Pull request successfully merged into master. Build succeeded: |
mathlib-bors
bot
changed the title
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
While many of the lemmas cease to apply,
the definitions of sequences and their sums are still perfectly well-behaved in additive monoids; no negation is needed.
In future, we could use this to generalize
NormedSpace.expsuch that it works withNNReal, but unless leanprover-community/mathlib3#16554 or #11203 lands and provides aDivisionSemiring.nnqsmulfield, that would conflict with #8370.EDIT(Yaël): #11203 landed.