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

feat(algebra/group/GroupModule): basic definitions of bundled modules over a group #2121

Closed
wants to merge 6 commits into from

Conversation

semorrison
Copy link
Collaborator

Since @kbuzzard was interested a prototype of group modules, I thought I'd write a version too. This is just a draft PR, and perhaps can wait until either it has more content, or someone actually wants it, but I think might be useful for discussion regarding bundled objects and using the category theory library with them.

The basic definition here is

structure GroupModule (G : Group.{u₁}) :=
(V : AddCommGroup.{u₁})
(ρ : G ⟶ Group.of (Aut V))

and it's all "follow your nose" from there.

@semorrison
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Actually, I couldn't resist generalising a bit, from AddCommGroup to an arbitrary 𝕍, so these definitions will work equally well for groups acting on Ab or on vector spaces.

@jcommelin
Copy link
Member

@semorrison This is a "Draft" PR. What does that mean? Do you want to merge this, or do you first want more comments?

@semorrison
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Mostly I wanted to try out the "Draft" feature.

Somehow I really don't want to argue that this is the best definition for a GroupModule G. There are many many definitional choices that could be made here. This is a sketch of how you might set up the category after making one such choice.

Certainly we want to provide the equivalence between GroupModule (Module k) G and Module (monoid_algebra k G) at some point. This can't quite be done in this PR, as monoid_algebra is in #2135 which hasn't landed.

In any case, I'll click "Ready for review", and we can continue this discussion.

@semorrison semorrison marked this pull request as ready for review March 19, 2020 19:54
@jcommelin jcommelin added the RFC Request for comment label Mar 19, 2020
@jcommelin
Copy link
Member

Ok, I'll tag this RFC for now, and focus on other PRs first. Please feel free to ping me if you want me to look at it again.

@semorrison
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I've completely rewritten this, and will reopen a separate PR later.

@semorrison semorrison closed this Mar 22, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
RFC Request for comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants