Skip to content
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

feat: bump to 4.16.0rc2 #206

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Jan 14, 2025
Merged

feat: bump to 4.16.0rc2 #206

merged 4 commits into from
Jan 14, 2025

Conversation

sgouezel
Copy link
Contributor

I've upstreamed several things already, so this makes for a nice cleanup.

Copy link
Collaborator

@grunweg grunweg left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks a lot for your PR! Looks good to me, just three small comments.
@fpvandoorn maintainer merge (i.e., you may want to take a look)

@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
import Carleson.ToMathlib.Analysis.SumIntegralComparisons
import Mathlib.Analysis.SumIntegralComparisons
import Mathlib.Analysis.SpecialFunctions.Integrals
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Should this file move to ToMathlib? (Are there are sorries left? I didn't check.)

If so, can you add a TODO comment (no need to move now)?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It looks a little bit too specialized to me for mathlib.

@@ -285,13 +285,13 @@ lemma adjoint_tree_estimate (hu : u ∈ t) (hf : BoundedCompactSupport f) :
eLpNorm (adjointCarlesonSum (t u) f) 2 volume ≤
C7_4_2 a * dens₁ (t u) ^ (2 : ℝ)⁻¹ * eLpNorm f 2 volume := by
rw [C7_4_2_def]
let g := adjointCarlesonSum (t u) f
set g := adjointCarlesonSum (t u) f with h'g
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is not needed, right?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The set instead of let is necessary, but the with clause is not so I've removed it.

@@ -2486,7 +2486,7 @@ lemma estimate_trnc {p₀ q₀ q : ℝ} {spf : ScaledPowerFunction} {j : Bool}
(p₀⁻¹ * q₀) := by
have := spf.hd
unfold eLpNorm eLpNorm'
let tc := spf_to_tc spf
set tc := spf_to_tc spf with htc
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Not needed, right?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Again, the set is necessary, but the with clause is not so I've removed it.

@fpvandoorn
Copy link
Owner

Thanks! I'm just going to hope there is no semantic merge conflict with the previous just-merged PR.

@fpvandoorn fpvandoorn merged commit c4593b3 into fpvandoorn:master Jan 14, 2025
2 checks passed
@fpvandoorn
Copy link
Owner

Oh that was a mistake. If someone can fix the build, that would be great.

@sgouezel
Copy link
Contributor Author

I'll fix it.

@sgouezel
Copy link
Contributor Author

Fix at #207

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.

4 participants