Making realizable a disjoint union of disposition and role. #221
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
See #220 for full context
wdduncan
approved these changes
Dec 16, 2022
|
I don't think it should be a disjoint union. Realizable was deliberately left open because of the expectation that there would be other subclasses, such as power. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
See #220 for full context
I have no strong opinions about whether this should be merged, the PR is in part to demonstrate a claim in 220.
I tend to think that if we include a class disposition then we should include complete axioms for it, but it's not clear that high level groupings like disposition do any work in COB, and maybe we should but out this grouping