Not signed in (Sign In)

Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

  • Sign in using OpenID

Site Tag Cloud

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology definitions deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration foundation foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory infinity integration integration-theory k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology newpage nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pages pasting philosophy physics pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory type type-theory universal variational-calculus

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to nForum
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeApr 29th 2022

    Somehow I missed that Mike’s 3 talks were going ahead: Yesterday (28 April), 5 May and 12 May, details here.

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeApr 29th 2022

    Is there any ’Trinitarian’ story to tell about the advantages of HOTT over the other generations of HoTT? Do the differences correspond to anything in category theory?

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeApr 29th 2022
    • (edited Apr 29th 2022)

    […] Question answered in the talk.

  1. Is there a way to define dependent/homogeneous identity types without using universes?

  2. I meant heterogoeneous identity types, rather than “homogeneous” identity types.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorUlrik
    • CommentTimeApr 30th 2022

    @4,5: There are many equivalent ways of defining dependent identity types, several of which don’t need universes. The simplest is perhaps as an identity type in the right (or left) fiber, using transport. (I.e., (a= p Bb):(trp Ppa= B(b)b(a =^B_p b) :\equiv (\mathrm{trp}^P\,p\,a =_{B(b)} b, for a,b:Aa,b:A, p:a= Abp:a=_A b, and BB a type family over AA.) But you can also express them as an indexed inductive type.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeApr 30th 2022

    I assume Madeleine’s question was about the specific heterogeneous identity types in H.O.T.T., since the latter was the subject of this thread. One can simply postulate all the n-ary heterogeneous identity types, along with all their structure, rather than deriving them from n-ary ap and the universe. Semantically, one may want to do that anyway, and then separately assert equalities saying that they happen to coincide with the underlying correspondences of ap into the universe. But for a syntactic introduction, I find it clean and nicely motivating to derive them from the latter.

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeApr 30th 2022

    Is there any ’Trinitarian’ story to tell about the advantages of HOTT over the other generations of HoTT? Do the differences correspond to anything in category theory?

    Roughly I would say that:

    1. Book HoTT corresponds to Quillen model categories.
    2. Cubical type theories correspond to Quillen model categories containing an interval object.
    3. H.O.T.T. corresponds to Quillen model categories enriched over semicartesian cubical sets. (This will become clearer after the second and third talks.)

    In all cases one needs extra niceness properties, but this is the basic distinguishing structure. Does that go any way towards answering the question?

  3. My question was about the heterogeneous identity types in Mike’s presentation of higher observational type theory. Mike’s presentation implicitly uses universes a la Russell, where every type is a term of a universe. But Mike’s definition of heterogeneous identity types through universes presents some problems in a type theory which uses universes a la Tarski: since it is not true that every type is a term of a universe a la Tarski, the given definition is only valid (after translating appropriately) for those types that are some coercion El(A)El(A) of a term A:UA:U of a universe UU.

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeMay 1st 2022

    It works fine with universes a la Tarski as long as every type belongs to some universe.

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeMay 1st 2022

    If you have types that don’t belong to any universe, then you’d have to give primitive rules for the heterogeneous equality types, as I suggested in #7.

    • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeMay 3rd 2022

    Re #8, thanks Mike! Since you seem to be convinced that H.O.T.T. represents a philosophical improvement, perhaps I expected this to be clear in the direction of change of categorical semantics, say to something simpler. Maybe I shouldn’t expect this though.

  4. Looks like Mike Shulman gave primitive rules for dependent identity types in his second talk yesterday.

    • CommentRowNumber14.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeMay 6th 2022
    • (edited May 6th 2022)

    Is there any reason the video is not yet available on YouTube? I think the first one was up quite promptly.

    Edit Oh, I see Jonas Frey gave a temporary “link for the impatient” here: https://u.pcloud.link/publink/show?code=XZXBjpVZ8cOAFR7oWoRbobS6NWsNE82pz3Ny, the official upload will happen presumably before the day is out.

  5. The video of the 2nd lecture has been posted to Youtube here.

    • CommentRowNumber16.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeMay 6th 2022

    Thanks, Madeleine!

  6. For anybody interested, the third lecture has been posted to Youtube here.