-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 68
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
Isbell duality is missing #441
Comments
AFAIK you are correct: we've never programmed that one. That's as good a place as any for the proof. Putting the various 'pieces' in their right place may also need discussion. Which proof do you intend to follow? |
At the moment I am still trying to type correctly the |
I was partly hoping you'd complete the (co)end calculus facilities so as to use the 'elegant' proof... but that is perhaps wishful thinking! [I had started doing all the prerequisites, but then ran out of steam.] If you find oddities while reading other parts of the library, please do submit issues. And tiny PRs are just as welcome as big meaty ones! |
To make (co)end calculus usable, you really need a DSL for writing "functorial forms", EG: the stuff that happens underneath the integral. If you don't have this, then things degenerate into an unreadable point-free mess of functor compositions |
Ah, that makes sense - need more intensionality, doing this extensionally gets all messy. |
Yeah; things get really nasty when you have nested (co)ends, which is exactly what you need for Isabelle duality. |
I noticed there is no mention of Isbell duality in agda-categories https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Isbell+duality
If you confirm me that this adjunction is not already present under a different name, hopefully a PR will soon follow
I'm thinking
Categories.Adjoint.Instance.Isbell
as placement, any better idea?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: