Not signed in (Sign In)

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

  • Sign in using OpenID

Discussion Tag Cloud

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.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeDec 1st 2011
    • (edited Sep 26th 2012)

    started bracket type, just for completeness, but don’t really have time for it

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeDec 1st 2011

    had the chance to add a bit more to bracket type: now there is an Idea-section a Semantics-section.

    I have also added links to bracket type to relevant entries, in particular to types and logic - table.

    Experts please check. I am pretty sure I know what I am talking about here, but I may not be using language in the standard way.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeDec 1st 2011

    I am somewhat surprised that the idea of “bracket types” is not already in the original articles on propositions as types. I had thought that taking bracket types is implicitly understood all along.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeDec 3rd 2011
    Thanks! I edited bracket type a bit. Bracket types were actually already referred to at propositions as types, only not by that name -- in the final paragraph of the Idea section under the phrase "propositions as some types". I added extra clarification there as well.
    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeSep 26th 2012
    • (edited Sep 26th 2012)

    I have added to bracket type a brief section Definition in homotopy type theory with the definition of supp(A)supp(A).

    Also added four references on this. I see in Mike’s lectures the construction is attributed to Lumsdaine. However in the recent post by Brunerie, it seems to be attributed to Voevodsky. I don’t know. The entry currently does not cite Lumsdaine yet, but probably it should.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeSep 26th 2012
    • (edited Sep 26th 2012)

    Voevodsky defined it, as Guillaume said, “using impredicative quantification and resizing rules” (and also univalence). I believe his definition simply mimics the classical proof that a (1-)topos is a regular category — univalence plus a resizing rule is just the way that you get a subobject classifier in HoTT.

    The definition as an HIT is what is due to Peter Lumsdaine.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeSep 26th 2017

    I added the recursion principle for supp(A)supp(A). I also added to the notations for the bracket type. We’re up to 6 now.

  1. fixed HTML entities to UTF-8 characters in Agda snippet


    diff, v17, current

Add your comments
  • Please log in or leave your comment as a "guest post". If commenting as a "guest", please include your name in the message as a courtesy. Note: only certain categories allow guest posts.
  • To produce a hyperlink to an nLab entry, simply put double square brackets around its name, e.g. [[category]]. To use (La)TeX mathematics in your post, make sure Markdown+Itex is selected below and put your mathematics between dollar signs as usual. Only a subset of the usual TeX math commands are accepted: see here for a list.

  • (Help)