feat(CategoryTheory): pseudofunctors to Cat#24384
Conversation
PR summary db52f0992dImport changes for modified filesNo significant changes to the import graph Import changes for all files
|
| lemma mapComp'_comp_id_hom_app : | ||
| (F.mapComp' f (𝟙 b₁) f).hom.app X = (F.mapId b₁).inv.app ((F.map f).obj X) := by | ||
| simp [mapComp'_comp_id] | ||
|
|
||
| lemma mapComp'_comp_id_inv_app : | ||
| (F.mapComp' f (𝟙 b₁) f).inv.app X = (F.mapId b₁).hom.app ((F.map f).obj X) := by | ||
| simp [mapComp'_comp_id] | ||
|
|
||
| lemma mapComp'_id_comp_hom_app : | ||
| (F.mapComp' (𝟙 b₀) f f).hom.app X = (F.map f).map ((F.mapId b₀).inv.app X) := by | ||
| simp [mapComp'_id_comp] | ||
|
|
||
| lemma mapComp'_id_comp_inv_app : | ||
| (F.mapComp' (𝟙 b₀) f f).inv.app X = (F.map f).map ((F.mapId b₀).hom.app X) := by | ||
| simp [mapComp'_id_comp] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
FYI, I have written an attribute to deal with this exact situation! Tagging a lemma, which is an equality between two 2-morphisms, with @[to_app] automatically adds a new lemma that specializes the Bicategory where the equality is taking place to Cat, applies NatTrans.app on both sides and peforms some basic simplification. Then name of the new lemma will then be old_name_app. I wrote this because I was also dealing with Pseudofunctors to Cat when making some progress on 2-Yoneda. So I think if you stated these lemmas as mapComp'_comp_id_hom in the Strict file, you would get these for free by tagging it with @[to_app].
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So in theory, this file should (maybe?) not need to exist, as you can prove all these lemmas for (strict?) bicategories and tag it with @[to_app]. Although the point of making that attribute was to save time, I am not sure if there is any point in making you rewrite these lemmas for strict bicategories just to be able to tag them with @[to_app]...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So in other words, what I think you should do is add hom/inv lemmas to the strict file and tag these with @[to_app].
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for this attribute! However, in other to get suitable lemmas, I had to add a few lemmas #25971 in the simp set to take into account that associators and unitors induce identities.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks! Yes I imagined this simp-set was incomplete, and would be added to once people start using the attribute.
|
This PR/issue depends on: |
|
This PR has been migrated to a fork-based workflow: #25971 |
We specialize the API from PR #24382 to the case of pseudofunctors to
Cat.Co-authored-by: Christian Merten christian@merten.dev