-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 272
[ refactor ] generalise Data.Sum.Relation.Binary.Pointwise.elim #3079
#3085
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
3
commits into
agda:master
Choose a base branch
from
jamesmckinna:refactor-sum-pointwise-bis
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and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
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
Oops, something went wrong.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This is not really an eliminator, is it? It is much more like a transport (hence the
subst-based implementation!)Starting bid of
transport-[,]-=[]⇒. I hate it, but have to start somewhere! Now that I've had more time to think about it, I definitely dislikeelimas this isn't an eliminator at all.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, I happen to disagree, but I suppose in fairness It All Depends what you mean by... 'eliminator'...
... within the 'logic' / consequence relation given by inclusion/implication between relations, this is exactly an eliminator: it is an inference rule which describes what 'conclusion'
Tis derivable from what 'principal formula'Pointwise R Sby appeal to the ancillary sequents witnessing that 'Tfollows fromR' (resp.S)...Categorically, it expresses
Pointwise R Sas a (suitable indexed generalisation of a) coproduct, withelimgeneralising the usual arrow-out-of-a-colimit.What's not like an eliminator about that!?
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.
And, FTR, I derived these while trying to think about #3081 in terms of product diagrams, with corresponding rule
introas a staging post on the way to generalisingProduct.zip... so it seems important to me, at least, to characterise these (dual!) constructions not only type-theoretically, but also categorically.Or perhaps rather, given the contested terminology, not only categorically, but also type-theoretically!!! ;-)
Hope you'll change your mind on this...
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
substis only there to make use of the generalisation via extensionality...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.
Put that way (which should be in the comments!!!), I do see how this is an eliminator.
In which case, given our naming convention for many other eliminators, maybe it should be called
pointwise?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.
Interesting suggestion! And something I have suggested in the past...
... just as this new departure with
introandelimis a fresh experiment... in a more 'semantics'-oriented approach to naming?