Add the walking coreflexive pair#139
Merged
ScriptRaccoon merged 1 commit intomainfrom Apr 30, 2026
Merged
Conversation
7b0ffce to
d7ba8d6
Compare
d7ba8d6 to
7d1f76c
Compare
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR adds the walking coreflexive pair, the category generated by two morphisms$i,j : [0] \to [1]$ and a morphism $p: [1] \to [0]$ with $pi = pj = \mathrm{id}$ . This is just the truncated simplex category $\Delta^{\leq 1}$ .
This PR resolves (the dual of) #122. At first, I wanted to add the walking reflexive pair (#136), but while deciding its properties, it become more and more clear that its dual category is easier to handle and that we can recycle some arguments from the simplex category which already is in the database.
Interestingly, dualizing the proofs from #136 added two new unknown properties (I expected the same number). The first one, being multi-complete, could not be deduced because the property of being locally multi-presentable currently does not have a dual in the database. This is bad, we should always add duals from now on, since otherwise the deduction system is not "symmetric". The second one, being a generalized variety, was simply not visible for the walking reflexive pair since this property has no dual in the database. To be precise: the walking coreflexive pair does not have cosifted limits ( = the walking reflexive pair does not have sifted colimits), so that the walking coreflexive pair is not a "generalized covariety" ( = the walking reflexive pair is not a generalized variety). For the walking reflexive pair, this was already the end of the story, but not for the walking coreflexive pair. It is indeed a generalized variety, but that is somewhat non-trivial.
All properties for the walking coreflexive pair have been decided.