You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
We have our left and rights switched round in *-monoʳ-≤, *-monoʳ-≤-pos. It would be kind of good if we had definitions for Monotonic/LeftMonotonic/RightMonotonic etc. in Relation.Binary.Definitions to help keep us on the straight and narrow.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Regarding Anti, I have the (slight? vague?) feeling that as with Cancellative, it might be better to parametrise these properties on 'source' and 'target' relations... cf. Preserves?
UPDATED: I had been looking at this from the vantage point of Algebra.Definitions rather than Relation.Binary.Definitions... and am now struck by the witting/unwitting duplication between the two. As an example, the definition in the latter of AntiSym might as well be (towards a) definition of generalised monotonicity but for the distinction between type/level polymorphism in the Relation hierarchy, vs. the singly-sorted/typed approach (for a fixed 'equality' relation!) of Algebra...
We have our left and rights switched round in
*-monoʳ-≤
,*-monoʳ-≤-pos
. It would be kind of good if we had definitions forMonotonic
/LeftMonotonic
/RightMonotonic
etc. inRelation.Binary.Definitions
to help keep us on the straight and narrow.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: