-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 64
sumeN #815
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
sumeN #815
Conversation
3496a5c to
be4bd55
Compare
4a95c6c to
3436217
Compare
|
Is it ok if we have |
3436217 to
c858b6f
Compare
"Something more systematic" might go through the introduction of a more generic notation allowing to write I gave it a try with the following reserved notation: Reserved Notation "'?(' x '+' y ')'" (at level 0, x, y at level 1,
format "'?(' x + y ')'").One needs then at add parenteses here and there (e.g., There is certainly a better way to declare this notation. Shall we issue about that and care later? |
|
The question of the notation However, for this PR, I advocate that the primary lemmas should be the ones with hypothesis For the summations, it's the same, the first and primary lemma should be |
CohenCyril
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
* sumeN, renaming, generalization
Motivation for this change
minor addition, used in the dev of measure theory
Things done/to do
TODO before merge: doppeD, doppeBCHANGELOG_UNRELEASED.md- [ ] added corresponding documentation in the headersAutomatic note to reviewers
Read this Checklist and put a milestone if possible.