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.
added some references:
Univalent Foundations Project, p. 30 Homotopy Type Theory – Univalent Foundations of Mathematics (2013) [web, pdf]
Egbert Rijke, Def. 3.1.1 in: Introduction to Homotopy Type Theory, lecture notes, CMU (2018) [pdf, Rijke-IntroductionHoTT-2018.pdf:file, webpage]
Dear Anonymous Guest,
The first sentence in your edit is
The unit type could also be represented as a univalent universe.
Instead of “could” you mean “can” or “may”. Instead of “represented” you mean “regarded”.
The last sentence of your addition is:
The extensionality principle for the unit type then is simply the univalence axiom:
It hardly “is the univalence axiom”. Rather, it’s a completely degenerate variant oft it.
Even if we were to fix these sentences, I have trouble seeing what is useful about your paragraph.
Why are you adding such material, what motivates you? And why are you still hiding in anonymity?
added a paragraph explaining why it is useful to consider the unit type as a universe: universes in type theory correspond to regular and inaccessible cardinals in set theory
also added a sentence explaining that yes indeed the unit type represents a trivial universe where every type is contractible.
Thanks for reacting, I appreciate it. That looks better.
1 to 8 of 8