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

Grothendieck forgetful functor #37

Merged
merged 12 commits into from
Jul 5, 2023
Merged

Grothendieck forgetful functor #37

merged 12 commits into from
Jul 5, 2023

Conversation

stschaef
Copy link
Collaborator

Here is the forgetful functor from Grothendieck D to the category C, and a proof that this is faithful in the case that D is a displayed poset.

@maxsnew
Copy link
Owner

maxsnew commented Jun 19, 2023

Code looks good. Some thoughts on naming.

I would call it some variation "first projection" rather than "forgetful" as I think of these Grothendieck constructions as a kind of Sigma type for categories. So just Fst is probably a fine name. You don't need to give things really long names since users can just import it qualified and call it Grothendieck.Fst or something.

open DisplayedPoset

-- The first projection is faithful in the case of a displayed poset
FstIsForgetful : (D : DisplayedPoset {_} {_} {ℓP} C) →
Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think the naming convention is to call this isFaithfulFst

@maxsnew
Copy link
Owner

maxsnew commented Jul 5, 2023

Fix the naming and merge this?

@stschaef
Copy link
Collaborator Author

stschaef commented Jul 5, 2023

Sorry, this slipped my mind while distracted by subobjects/pullbacks

After wrestling with some merge conflicts, this is now mergeable.

This tests are failing, but not because of this code. Upstream cubical has deprecated Cubical.Foundations.Id, so Constructions.Free.Functor (and anything else that imports Id) needs to be refactored to fix the change with this import.

Because the tests aren't blocked on this piece of code, I will merge it and then open an issue for handling the change in cubical. sound reasonable?

@maxsnew
Copy link
Owner

maxsnew commented Jul 5, 2023

Sounds good. I'm aware of the change in cubical. It should just be a minor change for us

@stschaef stschaef merged commit 38cd7d4 into maxsnew:main Jul 5, 2023
1 of 2 checks passed
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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants