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

Basic properties of orthogonal maps #979

Merged
merged 83 commits into from
Jan 25, 2024

Conversation

fredrik-bakke
Copy link
Collaborator

@fredrik-bakke fredrik-bakke commented Dec 10, 2023

  • Coproducts of pullbacks are pullbacks
  • Gives some equivalent characterizations of orthogonal maps
  • Orthogonal maps are closed under homotopy
  • Equivalences are left and right orthogonal to any map
  • Right orthogonal maps are closed under
    • Composition
    • Left cancellation
    • Dependent products
    • Postcomp exponentiation
    • Products
    • Base change
  • Left orthogonal maps are closed under
    • Composition
    • Right cancellation
    • Dependent sums
    • Coproducts
  • Local (dependent) types are closed under
    • equivalent types
    • function homotopy
  • A type is f-local if and only if its terminal map is
  • A type is f-local if and only if its terminal map is f-orthogonal
  • A dependent type is f-local if its fibers are f-null
  • Code formatting and refactoring for pullbacks and miscellaneous.

@fredrik-bakke
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I'm just posting this PR now to announce what I'm working on to ensure we don't double up work, but I don't have a clear endpoint in mind for it yet.

@fredrik-bakke
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Since I don't know when I will be able to continue working on this, I will mark it as ready for review now. I think this is a reasonable ending point anyway.

@fredrik-bakke fredrik-bakke changed the title Basic closure properties of orthogonal maps Composition and cancellation properties of orthogonal maps Dec 16, 2023
@fredrik-bakke fredrik-bakke marked this pull request as ready for review December 16, 2023 15:50
@fredrik-bakke
Copy link
Collaborator Author

The type checker ran out of memory again 😬

@fredrik-bakke
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Since I don't know when I will be able to continue working on this, I will mark it as ready for review now. I think this is a reasonable ending point anyway.

Actually. I take that back. There are things I want to change that are added in this PR. It would be unfair to make you review it when I want to change it later anyway. I'll let this PR stand until I have time to complete it.

@fredrik-bakke fredrik-bakke marked this pull request as draft December 16, 2023 16:24
Copy link
Collaborator

@EgbertRijke EgbertRijke left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Excellent work! Thank you for all the improvements throughout the library, and the many new additions!

@fredrik-bakke
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Whenever you write vertical-cone or horizontal-cone in a name, wouldn't it be better to write vertical-map-cone and horizontal-map-cone? Or do you really mean to suggest that these names are about vertical and horizontal cones?

I think I originally intended the word vertical to bind to whatever is left of it. I.e. parse map-fiber-vertical-cone as (map-fiber-vertical)-cone. I'm okay with changing it to have an extra map- if you prefer.

@fredrik-bakke
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Thank you for the nice review and encouraging comments! I really appreciate it ❤️

@EgbertRijke
Copy link
Collaborator

If you could change vertical-cone to vertical-map-cone and horizontal-cone to horizontal-map-cone then I think this PR could be merged

@EgbertRijke
Copy link
Collaborator

In #885 I am changing the horizontal/vertical terminology for cocones to left/right, however, because it was creating some frictions and some unsensible naming in some instances. So please note that while I'm ok with merging this PR which extends the horizontal/vertical scheme, I will propose to change it later. It is still beneficial though, that you're introducing the scheme here, because it makes it easier to change to left/right.

@fredrik-bakke
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Great, thanks! I'll see if I can get it done tomorrow.

@fredrik-bakke
Copy link
Collaborator Author

There you go!

@EgbertRijke EgbertRijke merged commit 6e87c58 into UniMath:master Jan 25, 2024
4 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants