SpectralSetsAndWeakTiling.lean`

Explanation legend Lean4 Domain Explanation Language (L4DEL)

L4DEL explanations are a separate layer. They do not change the Lean source. Intuition is explanatory prose; numbered items are a reading path; sources link the wording back to evidence.

L4DEL: Lean4 Domain Explanation Language

Annotation provenance. This overlay contains 10 curated AI-written annotations and 7190 mechanical source-derived annotations. They have not been human-reviewed as explanations; treat them as unverified and not mathematical authority. Retained generation history: The 71 original curated annotations were produced in a Claude Sonnet 5.5 session at medium effort; Claude Opus 5.5 is recorded in that session as the advisor model, not the direct author. The bulk source-derived expansion was generated mechanically from pinned source comments by tooling developed in a GPT-5.6 Sol session at ultra reasoning; GPT-5.6 Sol did not originate the quoted source prose. On 2026-10-17 the mechanically generated source-comment annotations of the Formal Conjectures, Carleson, FLT, PFR, CompFiles, Mathematics in Lean and Theorem Proving in Lean overlays were regenerated by the same generator after three corrections made in a Claude Sonnet 5.5 session: titles no longer cut a sentence inside mathematics or end on a dangling word, workflow markers are removed from the quoted prose, and declaration names follow the scanner's namespace resolution. The boilerplate step line was dropped, and comments that were only a row of dashes no longer yield annotations. No new prose was written and no human review is claimed.

Credit: The upstream authors and contributors retain credit for the project and mathematics. lean4-explainer only renders their pinned source and adds the separately disclosed explanation layer.

Project sources: Pinned project documentation, Formal Conjectures paper, arXiv v1

7 declarations, 5 contain sorry, 0 declared as axioms

Spectral sets and weak tiling

This file formalizes Problems 7.1 and 7.2 from Kolountzakis, Lev, and Matolcsi.

References:

[KLM2023] Mihail N. Kolountzakis, Nir Lev, and Máté Matolcsi, Spectral sets and weak tiling.
[GL16] Rachel Greenfeld and Nir Lev, Spectrality and tiling by cylindric domains, Journal of Functional Analysis 271 (2016), 2808–2821.
[GL20] Rachel Greenfeld and Nir Lev, Spectrality of product domains and Fuglede's conjecture for convex polytopes, Journal d'Analyse Mathématique 140 (2020), 409–441.
[Ki26] Kenta Kitamura, A Lean proof of Problem 7.2 of Kolountzakis–Lev–Matolcsi in dimension three, GitHub repository (2026).

Imports (1)

FormalConjecturesUtil

theorem NowhereDenseSpectralSet.exists_nowhereDense_spectralSet [KLM2023, Problem 7.1] asks whether a bounded, measurable, nowhere dense subset $\Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^d$ of positive measure can be spectral sorry line 48 source
Source documentation
[KLM2023, Problem 7.1] asks whether a bounded, measurable, nowhere dense subset $\Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^d$ of positive measure can be spectral. The answer is known to be negative for $d = 1$, so the dimension is restricted to $d \ge 2$, where the problem is open.

depends on sorry what this means
Statement uses: Iff, True, Exists, Nat, And, LE.le, OfNat.ofNat, Set, Fin, Real, Bornology.IsBounded, MeasurableSet, IsNowhereDense, LT.lt, ENNReal, MeasureTheory.Measure, MeasureTheory.MeasureSpace.volume, isSpectral
Proof uses: sorryAx, Lean.Name, Bool.false, Lean.Name.num, Lean.Name.str, Lean.Name.anonymous
42 instances, coercions and auxiliary constants left out.

Tactic trace: 1 steps
Open to load the checked before-and-after goal states.
```
theorem exists_nowhereDense_spectralSet :
    answer(sorry) ↔ ∃ d : ℕ, 2 ≤ d ∧
      ∃ Ω : Set (Fin d → ℝ), Bornology.IsBounded Ω ∧ MeasurableSet Ω ∧
        IsNowhereDense Ω ∧ 0 < volume Ω ∧ isSpectral Ω := by
…
```
Mentions: isSpectral
def SpectralSetProduct.productSet The product $A \times B$, represented by consecutive coordinate blocks line 59 source
Source documentation
The product $A \times B$, represented by consecutive coordinate blocks.

standard axioms: Classical.choice, Quot.sound, propext what this means
Statement uses: Nat, Set, Fin, Real, HAdd.hAdd
Proof uses: Set.ofPred, And, Membership.mem, Fin.castAdd, Fin.natAdd
5 instances, coercions and auxiliary constants left out.
```
def productSet {n m : ℕ} (A : Set (Fin n → ℝ)) (B : Set (Fin m → ℝ)) :
    Set (Fin (n + m) → ℝ) :=
…
```
def SpectralSetProduct.spectralProductImpliesRightSpectral Spectrality of a product with an n-dimensional convex body forces spectrality of its bounded, measurable m-dimensional right factor line 68 source
Source documentation
Spectrality of a product with an n-dimensional convex body forces spectrality of its bounded, measurable m-dimensional right factor.
Following [KLM2023, §1.1], a convex body is a compact convex set with nonempty interior; Mathlib's ConvexBody does not require the latter, so it is imposed explicitly here.

standard axioms: Classical.choice, Quot.sound, propext what this means
Statement uses: Nat
Proof uses: ConvexBody, Fin, Real, Set, Set.Nonempty, interior, Bornology.IsBounded, MeasurableSet, isSpectral, HAdd.hAdd, SpectralSetProduct.productSet
25 instances, coercions and auxiliary constants left out.
```
def spectralProductImpliesRightSpectral (n m : ℕ) : Prop :=
…
```
theorem SpectralSetProduct.isSpectral_right_of_product_one_dimensional [KLM2023, Problem 7.2; GL16] For a one-dimensional convex body $A$ and a bounded, measurable set $B$, if $A \times B$ is spectral, then $B$ is spectral sorry line 79 source
Source documentation
[KLM2023, Problem 7.2; GL16] For a one-dimensional convex body $A$ and a bounded, measurable set $B$, if $A \times B$ is spectral, then $B$ is spectral.

depends on sorry what this means
Statement uses: Iff, True, Nat, LT.lt, OfNat.ofNat, SpectralSetProduct.spectralProductImpliesRightSpectral
Proof uses: sorryAx, Lean.Name, Bool.false, Lean.Name.num, Lean.Name.str, Lean.Name.anonymous
4 instances, coercions and auxiliary constants left out.

Tactic trace: 1 steps
Open to load the checked before-and-after goal states.
```
theorem isSpectral_right_of_product_one_dimensional :
    answer(True) ↔
      ∀ (m : ℕ), 0 < m → spectralProductImpliesRightSpectral 1 m := by
…
```
Mentions: SpectralSetProduct.spectralProductImpliesRightSpectral
theorem SpectralSetProduct.isSpectral_right_of_product_two_dimensional [KLM2023, Problem 7.2; GL20] For a two-dimensional convex body $A$ and a bounded, measurable set $B$, if $A \times B$ is spectral, then $B$ is spectral sorry line 89 source
Source documentation
[KLM2023, Problem 7.2; GL20] For a two-dimensional convex body $A$ and a bounded, measurable set $B$, if $A \times B$ is spectral, then $B$ is spectral.

depends on sorry what this means
Statement uses: Iff, True, Nat, LT.lt, OfNat.ofNat, SpectralSetProduct.spectralProductImpliesRightSpectral
Proof uses: sorryAx, Lean.Name, Bool.false, Lean.Name.num, Lean.Name.str, Lean.Name.anonymous
4 instances, coercions and auxiliary constants left out.

Tactic trace: 1 steps
Open to load the checked before-and-after goal states.
```
theorem isSpectral_right_of_product_two_dimensional :
    answer(True) ↔
      ∀ (m : ℕ), 0 < m → spectralProductImpliesRightSpectral 2 m := by
…
```
Mentions: SpectralSetProduct.spectralProductImpliesRightSpectral
theorem SpectralSetProduct.isSpectral_right_of_product_three_dimensional sorry line 103 source
depends on sorry what this means
Statement uses: Iff, True, Nat, LT.lt, OfNat.ofNat, SpectralSetProduct.spectralProductImpliesRightSpectral
Proof uses: sorryAx, Lean.Name, Bool.false, Lean.Name.num, Lean.Name.str, Lean.Name.anonymous
4 instances, coercions and auxiliary constants left out.

Tactic trace: 1 steps
Open to load the checked before-and-after goal states.
theorem SpectralSetProduct.isSpectral_right_of_product_of_convexBody [KLM2023, Problem 7.2] For every positive dimension $n$, a convex body $A$ and a bounded, measurable set $B$, must spectrality of $A \times B$ imply spectrality of $B$? sorry line 113 source
Source documentation
[KLM2023, Problem 7.2] For every positive dimension $n$, a convex body $A$ and a bounded, measurable set $B$, must spectrality of $A \times B$ imply spectrality of $B$?

depends on sorry what this means
Statement uses: Iff, True, Nat, LT.lt, OfNat.ofNat, SpectralSetProduct.spectralProductImpliesRightSpectral
Proof uses: sorryAx, Lean.Name, Bool.false, Lean.Name.num, Lean.Name.str, Lean.Name.anonymous
4 instances, coercions and auxiliary constants left out.

Tactic trace: 1 steps
Open to load the checked before-and-after goal states.
```
theorem isSpectral_right_of_product_of_convexBody :
    answer(sorry) ↔
      ∀ (n m : ℕ), 0 < n → 0 < m →
        spectralProductImpliesRightSpectral n m := by
…
```
Mentions: SpectralSetProduct.spectralProductImpliesRightSpectral