-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 260
[ add ] properties of Relation.Unary adjoints
#2866
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
Open
jamesmckinna
wants to merge
9
commits into
agda:master
Choose a base branch
from
jamesmckinna:unary-adjoints
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+68
−7
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
9 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
d02a8cf
add: adjoint properties for #2840
jamesmckinna 7a8d3cf
add: functoriality proofs
jamesmckinna 3ca0b06
tweak: keep original statement
jamesmckinna 8bf7322
fix: whitespace
jamesmckinna cbf3cc8
refactor: functoriality of the adjoints
jamesmckinna e32b4fc
refactor: functoriality of the adjoints, again
jamesmckinna a390fc0
Merge branch 'agda:master' into unary-adjoints
jamesmckinna 7ad3526
Merge branch 'master' into unary-adjoints
jamesmckinna 1dd33ee
add: more commentary text
jamesmckinna File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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.
Nice. I wish the proofs could get a similar treatment!
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
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.
Well, ok... but downstream?
I think when I last looked at this, the proofs for the left adjoint behave nicely, while the corresponding ones for the right need (lots of) extensionality, to the point of being unilluminating/incomprehensible.
Also, they should be generalised to
'property of
fimplies related property of adjoint diagram'(iso; injective; surjective... adjoint), but I got a headache working out the details...
The special case
f = idis almost too special to be worth singling out, but... baby steps. It's one reason I went back on my original thought to rewrite the lemma statement to use the adjoint notation... it felt like overkill for too-small stakes.Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
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.
Oh, and the use of
idto proxy for its definitionally-equal⊆-refl(Yoneda lemma!) is a bit cheeky, but arguably it looks worse by using the (conceptually) type-correct version, cf. the functoriality proofs, which I wrote Yoneda-style, rather than flattening out the compositions to re duplicate the pattern-matching versions which precede them...