feat: lemmas for the analytic part of the proof of the Gelfond–Schneider theorem (Part 4/5)#35316
feat: lemmas for the analytic part of the proof of the Gelfond–Schneider theorem (Part 4/5)#35316mkaratarakis wants to merge 15 commits intoleanprover-community:masterfrom
Conversation
Welcome new contributor!Thank you for contributing to Mathlib! If you haven't done so already, please review our contribution guidelines, as well as the style guide and naming conventions. We use a review queue to manage reviews. If your PR does not appear there, it is probably because it is not successfully building (i.e., it doesn't have a green checkmark), has the If you haven't already done so, please come to https://leanprover.zulipchat.com/, introduce yourself, and mention your new PR. Thank you again for joining our community. |
PR summary 96eec06566Import changes for modified filesNo significant changes to the import graph Import changes for all files
|
|
This PR/issue depends on: |
merge master
merge master
merge master
|
-awaiting-author |
merge master
| /-! | ||
| Auxiliary lemmata covering the analytic part of the proof of the Gelfond–Schneider theorem. | ||
| Move to appropriate files in Analysis/Complex or Analysis/Analytic and change docstring accordingly. | ||
| -/ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please move the lemmas to Mathlib.Analysis.Analytic.Order (where the other results on analyticOrderAt also reside) and remove this file (don't forget to also remove the import from Mathlib.lean).
| | some 0 => | ||
| have Hn_zero : analyticOrderAt f z₀ = 0 := Hn' | ||
| exact hf.analyticOrderAt_eq_zero.mp Hn_zero hzero |>.elim | ||
| | some (n'' + 1) => |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why n'' and not simply n (or n', but I don't think there is another n here that would be relevant)?
| have Hn_coe : analyticOrderAt f z₀ = ↑(n'' + 1) := Hn' | ||
| have := horder ▸ analyticOrderAt_deriv_of_pos hf Hn_coe | ||
| norm_cast at this ⊢ | ||
| have hchar : ringChar ℂ = 0 := by aesop |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| have hchar : ringChar ℂ = 0 := by aesop | |
| have hchar : ringChar ℂ = 0 := ringChar.eq ℂ 0 |
|
|
||
| lemma analyticOrderAt_eq_nat_iff_iteratedDeriv_eq_zero {f : ℂ → ℂ} {z₀ : ℂ} {n : ℕ} | ||
| (hf : AnalyticAt ℂ f z₀) : | ||
| analyticOrderAt f z₀ = n ↔ (∀ k < n, deriv^[k] f z₀ = 0) ∧ deriv^[n] f z₀ ≠ 0 := by |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why not use iteratedDeriv? Thre is more API (loogle says 169 decls compared to 44) than for deriv^[n].
|
@MichaelStollBayreuth Will review as requested, but might not be able to do that before the weekend (=25/26Apr). Sorry for being slow. |
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.