Skip to content

[ re #392 ] Proved results and added definitions for cancellative operators #421

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

Closed
wants to merge 5 commits into from

Conversation

alhassy
Copy link
Contributor

@alhassy alhassy commented Aug 15, 2018

This commit is in the direction of solving issue #392 .

_ContravariantOn_ : Op₁ A → Op₂ A → Set _
f ContravariantOn _∙_ = ∀ x y → f (x ∙ y) ≈ (f y ∙ f x)

_NecessarilyIdempotentFor_ : A → Op₂ A → Set _
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

From the discussion in #392 I think (modulo any further comments from @andreasabel) I think we've decided we're going to call this property Conical. No need for any infix notation I think.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Conical would be inappropraite in this case --no monoid, no any geometry is present.

Even if it were an acceptable name, as mentioned in the other thread for monoidal units being necessairly idempotent, then the usage would be misleading since one might expect a monoid.

The result is for an arbitrary element z, and the name NecessarilyIdempotentFor accurately captures the property.

@MatthewDaggitt
Copy link
Contributor

You also seem to have some whitespace issues. Try running fix-agda-whitespace 😄

@MatthewDaggitt MatthewDaggitt changed the title Proved results and added definitions for cancellative operators [ re #392 ] Proved results and added definitions for cancellative operators Aug 17, 2018
@MatthewDaggitt
Copy link
Contributor

Superseded by #650.

@MatthewDaggitt MatthewDaggitt added the status: duplicate The main contents of the issue or PR already exists in another issue or PR. label Apr 12, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
addition status: duplicate The main contents of the issue or PR already exists in another issue or PR.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants