Skip to content
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

FinSetoids is Cartesian #292

Draft
wants to merge 5 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

FinSetoids is Cartesian #292

wants to merge 5 commits into from

Conversation

Taneb
Copy link
Member

@Taneb Taneb commented Jul 4, 2021

This is a WIP because:

  • I want to implement Cocartesian also
  • I want to look into doing something with ObjectRestriction to make this work a little more general

@JacquesCarette
Copy link
Collaborator

I wonder if there might be an opportunity for proving a theorem of the sort "if category X has property P, then sub-category Y of X (as witnesses by relation R) also has property P if P and R are related in way Z". As sort of "R preserves P".

Is this what you meant by part 2 of the TODO?

@Taneb
Copy link
Member Author

Taneb commented Jul 4, 2021

I wonder if there might be an opportunity for proving a theorem of the sort "if category X has property P, then sub-category Y of X (as witnesses by relation R) also has property P if P and R are related in way Z". As sort of "R preserves P".

Is this what you meant by part 2 of the TODO?

Yeah, that's exactly what I meant by part 2.

@Taneb
Copy link
Member Author

Taneb commented Jul 16, 2021

The main thing stopping me from working on this PR is that I don't know where to put the tools for constructing terminal objects and binary products and things like that for object restrictions of categories. Any suggestions? I was thinking something like Categories.Category.Construction.ObjectRestriction.Properties.Terminal etc but I'm not satisfied by that

@JacquesCarette
Copy link
Collaborator

Why not put them directly in Categories.Category.Construction.ObjectRestriction.Properties ? Only if that grows very large would it need to be split (probably as you propose).

It might well be that some of the actual constructions should go elsewhere, and then just 'assembled' in the above?

@JacquesCarette
Copy link
Collaborator

@Taneb It would be really nice to get this finished and merged in. What can I do to help?

@Taneb
Copy link
Member Author

Taneb commented May 27, 2022

@JacquesCarette thanks for reminding me that this PR exists! I need to take another look at it to refamiliarise myself, it's been a while

@JacquesCarette
Copy link
Collaborator

Another ping on this one - it would be nice to finish. I have some cycles to help.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants