Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

• Forgot your password?
• Apply for membership

1. • CommentRowNumber1.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeSep 13th 2012
   • (edited Sep 13th 2012)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexPrompted by [discussion](http://nforum.mathforge.org/discussion/4236/internal-set/?Focus=34682#Comment_34682) in the thread on "[[internal sets]]" (badly named so) I have added to _[[h-set]]_ a comment in _[Properties - Relation to internal set](http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/h-set#RelationToInternalSets)_.

   Prompted by discussion in the thread on “internal sets” (badly named so) I have added to h-set a comment in Properties - Relation to internal set.

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeSep 13th 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexI have also edited and expanded the [Idea section](http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/h-set#Idea) a little. Please check if you can live with this.

   I have also edited and expanded the Idea section a little. Please check if you can live with this.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeSep 13th 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexI also disagree with this, for the same reason I mentioned in the other thread. Usually, in homotopy type theory (especially when regarded as the internal language of an $(\infty,1)$-topos) it *is* the 0-truncated objects which play the role of "sets".

   I also disagree with this, for the same reason I mentioned in the other thread. Usually, in homotopy type theory (especially when regarded as the internal language of an $(\infty,1)$-topos) it is the 0-truncated objects which play the role of “sets”.

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeSep 14th 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexWhat shall we do? I suppose we need to more thoroughly keep qualifiers around. Are we on the safe side with the "n-strictness"-terminology? Right now I can't check or do anything, as I have a connection of about one bit per second. But I'll try to fix later whatever mess I may have created.

   What shall we do?

   I suppose we need to more thoroughly keep qualifiers around. Are we on the safe side with the “n-strictness”-terminology?

   Right now I can’t check or do anything, as I have a connection of about one bit per second. But I’ll try to fix later whatever mess I may have created.

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeSep 20th 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexI've rewritten the section "Relation to internal sets" at [[h-set]] from the perspectitve I advocated in the [other thread](http://nforum.mathforge.org/discussion/4236/internal-set/?Focus=34743#Comment_34743). I don't have time right now to hash out the right "strict" qualifiers, unfortunately. Can you live with what I wrote for now?

   I’ve rewritten the section “Relation to internal sets” at h-set from the perspectitve I advocated in the other thread. I don’t have time right now to hash out the right “strict” qualifiers, unfortunately. Can you live with what I wrote for now?

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeSep 20th 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexThanks! Very nice and very helpful.

   Thanks! Very nice and very helpful.

7. • CommentRowNumber7.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeOct 27th 2017
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexAt _[[h-set]]_ there was no mentioning that they form a pretopos. I have added a minimum [here](https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/h-set#PretoposOfHsets).

   At h-set there was no mentioning that they form a pretopos. I have added a minimum here.