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.
at locally cartesian closed category I have added a Properties-section Equivalent characterizations with details on how the slice-wise internal hom and the dependent product determine each other.
This is intentionally written in, supposedly pedagogical, great detail, since I need it for certain discussion purposes. But looking back at it now, if you say it is too much notational detail, I will understand that :-). But I think it’s still readable.
I think this is great to have; thanks!
In the section equivalent formulations at locally cartesian closed category I would like to accompany the statement that “the internal hom in the slice is given by pullback followed by dependent product” by the corresponding type theoretic formulation.
I think I know essentially what I have to do, but somehow I am missing something about how to make this fully formal
So I am starting with two display maps
and want to write down the formula for the internal hom in the slice
type theoretically. So let’s see. I start with the dependent type
Then the pullback is expressed by substitution
and next the dependent product is
Now I am not sure how to formally proceed. I want to claim that this is definitionally equal to
If so, then I am done and get the expected expression:
That step where “I want to claim” clearly makes sense. But what is the formal justification? Which rule do I need to invoke here?
The key is that the display map has two different incarnations, once as a term
and once as a dependent type
The connection between them is that the type “” in the first incarnation is the dependent sum in the second incarnation, and the term is . Now the type theory actually only allows us to apply along display maps, in which case what we may want to think of as is actually ; the notation has no meaning in the type theory. (For a general morphism, we could define it to be the homotopy fiber, but that’s not I think what we’re doing here.) When you make this substitution, then your expressions do match up, since for the corresponding inhabitant of is the pair , and applied to this does yield definitionally.
Thanks!! That helps.
One thing I had missed was that dependent product is by definition only allowed along displays. I had invented that notation “” precisely because I thought I couldn’t write in general. But now I see that by definition that’s actually what I have to do. Good.
I have tried to brush up the discussion in the entry accordingly now.
By the way, I was thinking about this because the type-theoretic formula for the slice hom gives a very beautiful way to expose twisted cohomology. In
the left hand manifestly shows a bunch of classifying maps / cocycles parameterized over , whereas the right hand manifestly shows that these are equivalently sections of the pullback of a twisting bundle .
Of course this is already clear in the category-theoretic formula. But the type-theoretic formula makes it “even clearer”, almost translates the plain English description of the situation verbatim into a theorem. Not a particularly deep theorem, of course, I am just enjoying to see type theory formulations give nicely clear expressins for situations that have been important outside of logic.
That’s nice!
1 to 6 of 6