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

Isbell duality is missing #441

Open
tetrapharmakon opened this issue Nov 15, 2024 · 6 comments
Open

Isbell duality is missing #441

tetrapharmakon opened this issue Nov 15, 2024 · 6 comments

Comments

@tetrapharmakon
Copy link
Contributor

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?

@JacquesCarette
Copy link
Collaborator

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?

@tetrapharmakon
Copy link
Contributor Author

At the moment I am still trying to type correctly the O functor from [C,Setoid]^o to [C^o,Setoid]: on objects, it sends the copresheaf $P$ to the presheaf $C\mapsto \hom_{[C,Setoid]}(P,yC)$ where $yC$ is Yoneda. I will have to study a little other parts of the library to find the most elegant way of defining the setoid $\hom_{[C,Setoid]}(P,yC)$...

@JacquesCarette
Copy link
Collaborator

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!

@TOTBWF
Copy link
Collaborator

TOTBWF commented Nov 18, 2024

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 ☹️

@JacquesCarette
Copy link
Collaborator

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.

@TOTBWF
Copy link
Collaborator

TOTBWF commented Nov 18, 2024

Yeah; things get really nasty when you have nested (co)ends, which is exactly what you need for Isabelle duality.

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

No branches or pull requests

3 participants