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

Fibers of right orthogonal maps have unique extensions #120

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Oct 14, 2023

Conversation

TashiWalde
Copy link
Collaborator

  • For every map f : B -> A right orthogonal to ϕ ⊂ ψ, the fibers fib B A f a have unique extensions with respect to ϕ ⊂ ψ.
  • As a corollary we get that for any map between types with unique extensions, the fibers have again unique extensions.
  • In particular, this answers a question I was discussing with @emilyriehl : every map between Segal types has Segal fibers. I haven't yet formalized that specific instance, since I wasn't sure if this was something someone else (@nimarasekh ?) already did/wanted to do.
  • I have also reorganized and expanded the material about functoriality of extension types in 03-extension-types.

@jonweinb
Copy link
Collaborator

Thanks @TashiWalde! Cf. also [BW23, Subsection 3.1.2].

@jonweinb jonweinb merged commit 1b4c4f5 into rzk-lang:main Oct 14, 2023
2 checks passed
@nimarasekh
Copy link
Collaborator

  • For every map f : B -> A right orthogonal to ϕ ⊂ ψ, the fibers fib B A f a have unique extensions with respect to ϕ ⊂ ψ.
  • As a corollary we get that for any map between types with unique extensions, the fibers have again unique extensions.
  • In particular, this answers a question I was discussing with @emilyriehl : every map between Segal types has Segal fibers. I haven't yet formalized that specific instance, since I wasn't sure if this was something someone else (@nimarasekh ?) already did/wanted to do.
  • I have also reorganized and expanded the material about functoriality of extension types in 03-extension-types.

Just to make sure, I don't think I had any particular plans to formalize this statement, as I was working on other stuff in Section 8 (whereas to me this seems like it would fit into Section 5)? So @TashiWalde you should feel free to go for it if you want.

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.

None yet

3 participants