`Learning.stepsUntil_one_of_eq`🔗

Lemma

If we pull action a at time 0, the first time at which it is pulled once is 0.

theorem

Learning.stepsUntil_one_of_eq.{u_1, u_3} {𝓐 : Type u_1} {Ω : Type u_3}
  [DecidableEq 𝓐] {A : ℕ → Ω → 𝓐} {a : 𝓐} {ω : Ω} (hka : A 0 ω = a) :
  stepsUntil A a 1 ω = 0
Learning.stepsUntil_one_of_eq.{u_1, u_3}
  {𝓐 : Type u_1} {Ω : Type u_3}
  [DecidableEq 𝓐] {A : ℕ → Ω → 𝓐} {a : 𝓐}
  {ω : Ω} (hka : A 0 ω = a) :
  stepsUntil A a 1 ω = 0

Code

lemma stepsUntil_one_of_eq (hka : A 0 ω = a) : stepsUntil A a 1 ω = 0

Proof

by
  classical
  have h_pull : pullCount A a 1 ω = 1 := by simp [pullCount_one, hka]
  have h_le := stepsUntil_pullCount_le (A := A) ω a 0
  simpa [h_pull] using h_le

Actions: Source · Open Issue

Meaning last changed in v4.34.0-rc1-3-g2cf8f3b (2026-08-20).

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

Dependency graph

Audit surface: 2 project declarations, 26 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.

Learning.stepsUntil_one_of_eq🔗

`Learning.stepsUntil_one_of_eq`🔗