Skip to content

Change symbol for similarity #1418

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

Open
fredrik-bakke opened this issue Apr 28, 2025 · 1 comment · May be fixed by #1423
Open

Change symbol for similarity #1418

fredrik-bakke opened this issue Apr 28, 2025 · 1 comment · May be fixed by #1423
Labels
improve naming question Further information is requested

Comments

@fredrik-bakke
Copy link
Collaborator

fredrik-bakke commented Apr 28, 2025

The library has adopted the symbol for "similarity" of elements, for instance, for elements in preorders. However, it seems to me that the symbol is used more commonly to mean "approximates", e.g., "3 ≈ π" relative to some externally defined criterion. Part of the point of approximations is that they allow simplifying assumptions that include more solutions that are still satisfactory according to some criterion. However, with our current usage of the symbol, two elements are approximately the same in an extensional structure if and only if they are literally equal. Therefore, I propose using a different symbol for the notion of similarity of elements.

Some suggestions for alternatives are

  • ~, tilde, is already used for similarity of functions, and is commonly used for equivalence relation reasoning (note that approximation relations are commonly non-transitive!)
  • , Tilde Operator (agda-input: \sim)
  • , Equivalent To (agda-input: \asymp), is used for similarities/indistinguishabilities in the book The Univalence Principle
@fredrik-bakke fredrik-bakke added improve naming question Further information is requested labels Apr 28, 2025
@fredrik-bakke
Copy link
Collaborator Author

fredrik-bakke commented Apr 28, 2025

Out of the suggestions I'm most in favor of the last one, , as it doesn't invoke associations with what the underlying structure is like (at least to me).

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
improve naming question Further information is requested
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

1 participant