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 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 internal-categories k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure 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).
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 8th 2012
    • (edited May 9th 2012)

    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.

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeMay 9th 2012

    I think this is great to have; thanks!

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 19th 2012
    • (edited May 20th 2012)

    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

    X A ϕ c B \array{ X &&&& A \\ & {}_{\mathllap{\phi}}\searrow && \swarrow_{\mathrlap{c}} \\ && B }

    and want to write down the formula for the internal hom in the slice

    [X,A] B= ϕϕ *AB [X,A]_B = \prod_\phi \phi^* \langle A \to B\rangle

    type theoretically. So let’s see. I start with the dependent type AB\langle A \to B \rangle

    b:BA(b):Type b : B \vdash A(b) : Type

    Then the pullback ϕ *AB\phi^* \langle A \to B\rangle is expressed by substitution

    x:XA(ϕ(x)):Type x : X \vdash A(\phi(x)) : Type

    and next the dependent product ϕϕ *AB\prod_\phi \phi^* \langle A \to B\rangle is

    b:B xϕ 1(b)A(ϕ(x)):Type. b : B \vdash \prod_{x \in \phi^{-1}(b)} A(\phi(x)) : Type \,.

    Now I am not sure how to formally proceed. I want to claim that this is definitionally equal to

    b:B xX(b)A(b):Type. b : B \vdash \prod_{x \in X(b)} A(b) : Type \,.

    If so, then I am done and get the expected expression:

    b:BX(b)A(b):Type. b : B \vdash X(b) \to A(b) : Type \,.

    That step where “I want to claim” clearly makes sense. But what is the formal justification? Which rule do I need to invoke here?

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeMay 20th 2012

    The key is that the display map ϕ:XB\phi : X\to B has two different incarnations, once as a term

    x:Xϕ(x):B x:X \vdash \phi(x) : B

    and once as a dependent type

    b:BX(b):Type b:B \vdash X(b) : Type

    The connection between them is that the type “XX” in the first incarnation is the dependent sum b:BX(b)\sum_{b:B} X(b) in the second incarnation, and the term ϕ(x)\phi(x) is pr1(x)pr1(x). Now the type theory actually only allows us to apply \prod along display maps, in which case what we may want to think of as x:ϕ 1(b)\prod_{x:\phi^{-1}(b)} is actually x:X(b)\prod_{x: X(b)}; the notation ϕ 1(b)\phi^{-1}(b) 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 x:X(b)x:X(b) the corresponding inhabitant of b:BX(b)\sum_{b:B} X(b) is the pair (b,x)(b,x), and ϕ=pr1\phi = pr1 applied to this does yield bb definitionally.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 20th 2012
    • (edited May 20th 2012)

    Thanks!! That helps.

    One thing I had missed was that dependent product is by definition only allowed along displays. I had invented that notation “x:ϕ 1(b)x : \phi^{-1}(b)” precisely because I thought I couldn’t write x:X(b)x : X(b) 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

    b:BX(b)A(b):Type=b:B x:X(b)A(ϕ(x)):Type b : B \vdash X(b) \to A(b) : Type \;\;\;\; = \;\;\; b : B \vdash \prod_{x : X(b)} A(\phi(x)) : Type

    the left hand manifestly shows a bunch of classifying maps / cocycles parameterized over BB, whereas the right hand manifestly shows that these are equivalently sections of the pullback of a twisting bundle c:ABc : A \to B.

    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.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeMay 21st 2012

    That’s nice!