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 book bundle 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 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 integration integration-theory k-theory lie lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry 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 stack string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft 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).
  1. Page created, but author did not leave any comments.

    Anonymous

    v1, current

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

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

    hyperlinked “HoTT” (!)

    replaced “universe” by “type universe

    maybe “primitive type” would deserve to be hyperlinked

    hyperlinked “proof of types” as “proof of types

    hyperlinked “Mike Shulman

    \;

    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!

    diff, v2, current

    • 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.

    diff, v9, current

    • 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

    diff, v10, current

    • 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.

    diff, v15, current

  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
    • CommentTimeFeb 1st 2023

    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.

    diff, v16, current

  4. The computational rule for dependent function types was mistakenly referred to as for dependent pair types — seemingly a typo. I also moved it to follow immediately after the rule for (non-dependent) function types.

    Nate Yazdani

    diff, v17, current

  5. I believe this preprint is the first publication on this topic

    In section 6 the authors write

    We presented a type theory with internal parametricity, a presheaf model and a canonicity proof. It can be seen as a baby version of higher observational type theory (HOTT). To obtain HOTT, we plan to add the following additional features to our theory: * a bridge type which can be seen as an indexed version of \forall, * Reedy fibrancy, which replaces spans by relations, * a strictification construction which turns the isomorphism for Π\Pi types into a definitional equality (in case of bridge, we also need the same for Σ\Sigma), * Kan fibrancy, which adds transport and turns the bridge type into a proper identity type. This would also change the correspondence between U\forall U and spans into U\forall U and equivalences.

    a type theorist

    diff, v20, current