Skip to content
GitLab
Explore
Sign in
Primary navigation
Search or go to…
Project
I
iris
Manage
Activity
Members
Labels
Plan
Issues
Issue boards
Milestones
Wiki
Code
Merge requests
Repository
Branches
Commits
Tags
Repository graph
Compare revisions
Snippets
Build
Pipelines
Jobs
Pipeline schedules
Artifacts
Deploy
Releases
Model registry
Operate
Environments
Monitor
Incidents
Service Desk
Analyze
Value stream analytics
Contributor analytics
CI/CD analytics
Repository analytics
Model experiments
Help
Help
Support
GitLab documentation
Compare GitLab plans
Community forum
Contribute to GitLab
Provide feedback
Terms and privacy
Keyboard shortcuts
?
Snippets
Groups
Projects
Show more breadcrumbs
Tej Chajed
iris
Commits
be549d5a
Commit
be549d5a
authored
9 years ago
by
Ralf Jung
Browse files
Options
Downloads
Patches
Plain Diff
add a comment about the OFE vs COFE situation
parent
24a71fb3
No related branches found
No related tags found
No related merge requests found
Changes
1
Hide whitespace changes
Inline
Side-by-side
Showing
1 changed file
algebra/cofe.v
+19
-0
19 additions, 0 deletions
algebra/cofe.v
with
19 additions
and
0 deletions
algebra/cofe.v
+
19
−
0
View file @
be549d5a
From
algebra
Require
Export
base
.
From
algebra
Require
Export
base
.
(** This files defines (a shallow embedding of) the category of COFEs:
Complete ordered families of equivalences. This is a cartesian closed
category, and mathematically speaking, the entire development lives
in this category. However, we will generally prefer to work with raw
Coq functions plus some registered Proper instances for non-expansiveness.
This makes writing such functions much easier. It turns out that it many
cases, we do not even need non-expansiveness.
In principle, it would be possible to perform a large part of the
development on OFEs, i.e., on bisected metric spaces that are not
necessary complete. This is because the function space A → B has a
completion if B has one - for A, the metric itself suffices.
That would result in a simplification of some constructions, becuase
no completion would have to be provided. However, on the other hand,
we would have to introduce the notion of OFEs into our alebraic
hierarchy, which we'd rather avoid. Furthermore, on paper, justifying
this mix of OFEs and COFEs is a little fuzzy.
*)
(** Unbundeled version *)
(** Unbundeled version *)
Class
Dist
A
:=
dist
:
nat
→
relation
A
.
Class
Dist
A
:=
dist
:
nat
→
relation
A
.
Instance
:
Params
(
@
dist
)
3
.
Instance
:
Params
(
@
dist
)
3
.
...
...
This diff is collapsed.
Click to expand it.
Preview
0%
Loading
Try again
or
attach a new file
.
Cancel
You are about to add
0
people
to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Save comment
Cancel
Please
register
or
sign in
to comment