# Start a new discussion

## Not signed in

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

## Site Tag Cloud

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

1. Page created, but author did not leave any comments.

Anonymous

• CommentRowNumber2.
• CommentAuthorUrs
• CommentTimeMay 7th 2022
• (edited May 7th 2022)

how about we replace “higher dimensional” with “higher homotopy” ?

replaced “universe” by “type universe

maybe “primitive type” would deserve to be hyperlinked

hyperlinked “proof of types” as “proof of types

$\;$

By the way, we never had remotely as many edits signed by “Anonymous”. It’s great to see so much activity, and of good quality, too!. But it’s dizzying that all edits carry the same signature. Is this all from a single anonymous contributor? Might I kindly ask that you (all?) choose some pseudonym, so that (you remain anonymous but) we are able to distinguish authors by their signature? Thanks!

• CommentRowNumber3.
• CommentAuthorUrs
• CommentTimeJun 5th 2022
• (edited Jun 5th 2022)

The entry was referring (here) to “one-to-one correspondences”, with a broken link. From the context I am assuming that bijective correspondences are meant, and so I have fixed the link accordingly. But experts please check. Best to replace “one-to-one” by a proper technical term.

Also, do you really want to point to correspondence = span? Maybe all of “one-to-one correspondence” needs to be replaced by “bijection”, or something like this.

• CommentRowNumber4.
• CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
• CommentTimeJun 5th 2022
• (edited Jun 5th 2022)

My understanding is that it really is defined analogous to a relation that is functional, total, injective and surjective, not a bijection. So correspondence in the sense of eg algebraic geometry (ie a span) really is suitable.

• CommentRowNumber5.
• CommentAuthorUrs
• CommentTimeJun 5th 2022

I see, thanks. This would be worth expanding on in the entry.

2. the added text was originally from the HoTT wiki; I have no idea how accurate it is.

Anonymous

• CommentRowNumber7.
• CommentAuthorUrs
• CommentTimeFeb 1st 2023
• (edited Feb 1st 2023)

Coming back to this thread, prompted by discussion in another thread (here):

The previous idea section of this entry seemed to me to convey essentially no real idea of the topic at hand. Also in view of comment #6 above, I have therefore taken the liberty of deleting it and writing a new Idea-section from scratch: here.

Incidentally, also the technical material in the bulk of the entry seems not to convey much relevant information. But that part I haven’t touched yet.

3. Just a note,

At the moment this seems to remain a hope, certainly there is currently no proof assistant implementing the principles of higher observational type theory. Ideally the references below would elucidate which questions remain open and which problems remain to be solved.

This is not true anymore. Mike Shulman has implemented a proof assistant in Agda: https://github.com/mikeshulman/ohtt.

• CommentRowNumber9.
• CommentAuthorUrs
• CommentTime7 days ago

Thanks, I have added the pointer to the github page: here.

But I leave it to others to edit the paragraph on what this accomplishes, such as whether there is a univalently computing homotopy type checker sitting on that github page.