-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 245
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
Add Algebra.Definitions.RawGroup
and Algebra.Properties.Group.*
#2454
Comments
Should it really be for |
@JacquesCarette what do you mean by "FOO properties"? |
@JacquesCarette Yes, I agree, but as with the But then we should go back and refactor the And: let's agree a design for |
@Taneb I meant it as a placeholder variable for something like Re: evolution. I'm starting to wonder if we need a companion library that builds on top of stdlib but has no strong compatibility guarantees, so that it may evolve much faster. For stdlib: I think mega PRs are very dangerous; then tend to go stale and never land. So I prefer piecemeal, so that progress actually happens. The problem with that is that mistakes might creep in to 'piecemeal' only to be discovered just-too-late. Thus my thoughts about a more experimental on-top library. Yes, a design for I don't see it so much as 'threads unraveling' as (re)discovering that mathematics is internally very structured. (We're not the only ones, Rocq and Lean people are (re)discovering the same, but not necessarily in the same spots.) |
@JacquesCarette Lots of food-for-thought in your last comments... |
On the model of
Algebra.Definitions.RawMonoid
Algebra.Properties.Monoid.*
Introducing the 'obvious' action(s) of type
ℤ → Carrier → Carrier
.Plus: additional properties in the
AbelianGroup
case...The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: