-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 199
Join: prove unitors, triangle law, and hexagon law #1784
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
Conversation
| Require Export WildCat.Square. | ||
| Require Export WildCat.PointedCat. | ||
| Require Export WildCat.Bifunctor. | ||
| Require Export WildCat.Monoidal. |
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.
Completely forgot we had this! Looks like there are some incomplete (aborted) results in there still.
| (** ** The hexagon axiom *) | ||
|
|
||
| (** This describes the transformation on [TriJoinRecData] corresponding to precomposition with [functor_join idmap (join_sym C B)], as in the next result. *) | ||
| Definition trijoinrecdata_id_sym {A B C P} (f : TriJoinRecData A B C P) |
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 can be defined ealier in TriJoin right?
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.
It could go in TriJoin, but I think it fits better in JoinAssoc. functor_join idmap (join_sym _ _) is like the twist equivalence, but in the second and third variables, instead of the first and second. So I think it fits in the file where the twist equivalence is studied. It's also a fairly specific result, so is probably best kept close to where it is used.
Alizter
left a comment
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.
Great stuff!
|
@jdchristensen Will you try to prove the pentagon next? I had a look and it seems we will probably need a |
@Alizter I'd like to have it, to complete the story, but I'm not sure how to handle the quadruple join. The triple-join induction principle was a lot of work, and while I figured out ways to avoid much of the path algebra, there were still a few cases that needed a 3-cell to be filled. I don't think it would be fun to figure out a 4-cell. I'll think about whether there's a way to push through the pentagon without developing the general theory of quadruple joins... |
The first commit adds faithfulness of the Yoneda embedding, which is used in the next parts. It also adds duals for the 0gpd results, which I hadn't added before.
The next two commits make progress towards showing that the join gives a symmetric monoidal structure. I think all that is missing is the pentagon.