Learning.sum_pullCount_mul🔗

Learning.sum_pullCount_mul.{u_1, u_2, u_3} {𝓐 : Type u_1} {R : Type u_2}
  {Ω : Type u_3} [DecidableEq 𝓐] {A : ℕ → Ω → 𝓐} [Fintype 𝓐]
  [Semiring R] (ω : Ω) (f : 𝓐 → R) (t : ℕ) :
  ∑ a, ↑(pullCount A a t ω) * f a = ∑ s ∈ Finset.range t, f (A s ω)
Learning.sum_pullCount_mul.{u_1, u_2, u_3}
  {𝓐 : Type u_1} {R : Type u_2}
  {Ω : Type u_3} [DecidableEq 𝓐]
  {A : ℕ → Ω → 𝓐} [Fintype 𝓐] [Semiring R]
  (ω : Ω) (f : 𝓐 → R) (t : ℕ) :
  ∑ a, ↑(pullCount A a t ω) * f a =
    ∑ s ∈ Finset.range t, f (A s ω)

lemma sum_pullCount_mul [Fintype 𝓐] [Semiring R] (ω : Ω) (f : 𝓐 → R) (t : ℕ) :
    ∑ a, pullCount A a t ω * f a = ∑ s ∈ range t, f (A s ω)

by
  unfold pullCount
  classical
  simp_rw [card_eq_sum_ones]
  push_cast
  simp_rw [sum_mul, one_mul]
  exact sum_fiberwise' (range t) (A · ω) f

Meaning unchanged since v4.33.0-rc1-29-gce231eb, the oldest revision on record (2026-07-30).

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: 1 project declarations, 20 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.