-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 86
feat: state results and conjectures on VCₘ dim of convex sets in ℝⁿ #553
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Changes from all commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,70 @@ | ||
| /- | ||
| Copyright 2025 The Formal Conjectures Authors. | ||
|
|
||
| Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License"); | ||
| you may not use this file except in compliance with the License. | ||
| You may obtain a copy of the License at | ||
|
|
||
| https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 | ||
|
|
||
| Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software | ||
| distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS, | ||
| WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. | ||
| See the License for the specific language governing permissions and | ||
| limitations under the License. | ||
| -/ | ||
| import FormalConjectures.Util.ProblemImports | ||
| import Mathlib.Analysis.Convex.Basic | ||
| import Mathlib.Data.Real.Basic | ||
|
|
||
| /-! | ||
| # VCₙ dimension of convex sets in ℝⁿ, ℝⁿ⁺¹, ℝⁿ⁺² | ||
|
|
||
| In the literature it is known that every convex set in ℝ² has VC dimension at most 3, | ||
| and there exists a convex set in ℝ³ with infinite VC dimension (even more strongly, | ||
| which shatters an infinite set). | ||
|
|
||
| This file states that every convex set in ℝⁿ has finite VCₙ dimension, constructs a convex set in | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Which of the formal statements below corresponds to "every convex set in ℝⁿ has finite VCₙ dimension"? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Whoops, that got lost in translation |
||
| ℝⁿ⁺² with infinite VCₙ dimension (even more strongly, which n-shatters an infinite set), | ||
| and conjectures that every convex set in ℝⁿ⁺¹ has finite VCₙ dimension. | ||
| -/ | ||
|
|
||
| /-! ### What's known in the literature -/ | ||
|
|
||
| /-- Every convex set in ℝ² has VC dimension at most 3. -/ | ||
| @[category research solved, AMS 5 52] | ||
| lemma vc_lt_four_of_convex_r2 {C : Set (Fin 2 → ℝ)} (hC : Convex ℝ C) | ||
| {x : Fin 4 → Fin 2 → ℝ} {y : Set (Fin 4) → Fin 2 → ℝ} | ||
| (hxy : ∀ i s, x i + y s ∈ C ↔ i ∈ s) : False := sorry | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. nit: the convention we follow is There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. How annoying would it be to add a local definition of the VC dimension and use it in these formalisations? This wouldn't have to be at Mathlib level generality (but could definitely be added to There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. It's definitely possible, but it would make the statement less concrete for no theoretical benefit (the first thing you do when dealing with VC dimension is unfolding the definition, quite often). What do you think? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I see! In my eyes, the main benefit of using the general definition is maintainability e.g. if we later decide we need to make some changes related to that definition, we would only need to modify one
What do you think? |
||
|
|
||
| /-- There exists a set of infinite VC dimension in ℝ³. -/ | ||
| @[category research solved, AMS 5 52] | ||
| lemma exists_convex_r3_vc_eq_infty : | ||
| ∃ (C : Set (Fin 3 → ℝ)) (hC : Convex ℝ C) (x : ℕ → Fin 3 → ℝ) (y : Set ℕ → Fin 3 → ℝ), | ||
| ∀ i s, x i + y s ∈ C ↔ i ∈ s := sorry | ||
|
|
||
| /-! ### What's not in the literature -/ | ||
|
|
||
| /-- There exists a set of infinite VCₙ dimension in ℝⁿ⁺². -/ | ||
| @[category research solved, AMS 5 52] | ||
| lemma exists_convex_rn_add_two_vc_n_eq_infty (n : ℕ) : | ||
| ∃ (C : Set (Fin (n + 2) → ℝ)) (hC : Convex ℝ C) (x : Fin n → ℕ → Fin (n + 2) → ℝ) | ||
| (y : Set (Fin n → ℕ) → Fin (n + 2) → ℝ), | ||
| ∀ i s, ∑ k, x k (i k) + y s ∈ C ↔ i ∈ s := sorry | ||
|
|
||
| /-! ### Conjectures -/ | ||
|
|
||
| /-- Every convex set in ℝ³ has VC₂ dimension at most 1. | ||
|
|
||
| In fact, this set n-shatters an infinite set. -/ | ||
| @[category research open, AMS 5 52] | ||
| lemma vc2_lt_two_of_convex_r3 {C : Set (Fin 3 → ℝ)} (hC : Convex ℝ C) | ||
| {x y : Fin 2 → Fin 3 → ℝ} {z : Set (Fin 2 × Fin 2) → Fin 3 → ℝ} | ||
| (hxy : ∀ i j s, x i + y j + z s ∈ C ↔ (i, j) ∈ s) : False := sorry | ||
|
|
||
| /-- Every convex set in ℝⁿ⁺¹ has VC₂ dimension at most 1. -/ | ||
| @[category research open, AMS 5 52] | ||
| lemma exists_vcn_le_of_convex_rn_add_one (n : ℕ) : | ||
| ∃ d : ℕ, ∀ (C : Set (Fin (n + 1) → ℝ)) (hC : Convex ℝ C) (x : Fin n → ℕ → Fin (n + 1) → ℝ) | ||
| (y : Set (Fin n → ℕ) → Fin (n + 1) → ℝ) (hxy : ∀ i s, ∑ k, x k (i k) + y s ∈ C ↔ i ∈ s), | ||
| False := sorry | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
this should suffice