LeanMachineLearning

MeasurableEquiv.coe_prodCongr🔗

Lemma

No docstring.

Types
  • α : Type u_2mα : MeasurableSpace αA measurable space is a space equipped with a σ-algebra.
  • β : Type u_3mβ : MeasurableSpace β
  • γ : Type u_4mγ : MeasurableSpace γ
  • δ : Type u_5mδ : MeasurableSpace δ
Given
  • e₁ : α ≃ᵐ βEquivalences between measurable spaces.
  • e₂ : γ ≃ᵐ δ
Then
⇑(e₁.prodCongr e₂) = Prod.map ⇑e₁ ⇑e₂
Code
lemma coe_prodCongr {α β γ δ : Type*}
    {mα : MeasurableSpace α} {mβ : MeasurableSpace β}
    {mγ : MeasurableSpace γ} {mδ : MeasurableSpace δ}
    (e₁ : MeasurableEquiv α β) (e₂ : MeasurableEquiv γ δ) :
    (prodCongr e₁ e₂ : (α × γ) → (β × δ)) = Prod.map e₁ e₂
Proof
rfl

New in v4.34.0-rc2-39-gb743f31 (2026-09-08), and its meaning has not changed since.

Self-contained, with its dependencies inlined and proofs replaced by sorry: download the raw file · open it in the Lean web editor.

Dependency graph

Nothing to draw. Its statement rests on no other declaration in this project, and names nothing from a package left unaudited — so the graph is this declaration alone. That is the answer, not a missing picture.

Audit surface: 0 project declarations, 10 external constants

✓ Proved: no sorry anywhere in its closure

This is the tool's own reading of one build's recorded axioms, and it is not robust against an author who wants it to pass. Checking meant to be relied on should go through Comparator, which replays the proof through the kernel from an export against an explicit list of permitted axioms.