Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below
Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
This page says:
Its induction principle says that for any equipped with a point and a dependent path , there is such that:
Should it instead say , or , or “dependent path over ”, or something like that? Does it matter?
Adrian
I think that’s right, there is a transport involved. That’s what the link dependent path is referring to. For the moment i have added (here) the missing -subscript and a pointer to UFP13, p. 177.
Ideally I would like to polish up the whole presentation (which is due to the notorious “Anonymous”, in revision 5) but not now.
On whether it matters: I expected it does. While I haven’t tried to write out a formal argument, a quick idea goes as follows:
In the higher induction principle of the suspension type there is certainly such dependent identifications involved, namely along the two “meridian” paths from the “north pole” to the “south pole”: by the general rules of higher inductive types, but also because here it would not even type-check otherwise. But then for the evident map to be an equivalence, there must be a corresponding dependent identification also in the induction principle of .
Assuming that the computation rule for the basepoint of is propositional, the propositional computation rule for the loop of listed on the page in the section titled “In natural deduction” is wrong. The application of the dependent function defined in the elimination rule of to the loop identification is actually in the heterogeneous identity type
rather than the heterogeneous identity type . One needs to transport the application across the identification found in the propositional computation rule for the basepoint in order for everything to type check in the propositional computation rule for the loop, or otherwise use a heterogeneous identity type instead of a homogeneous identity type, like
The term “identification type” is the more logically consistent one, though.
The term “identification type” is the more logically consistent one, though.
If you prefer, I could use “identification type” throughout the article instead of “identity type”. The problem is that originally the article used both “identification type” and “identity type”.
I added an explanation for the inference rules for the circle type, similar to the explanation for the inference rules for identity types over in that article.
1 to 18 of 18