Not signed in

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

• Username
• Password
• Remember me

• Sign in using OpenID
• Remember me

• Forgot your password?
• Apply for membership

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 definitions 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 k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nforum 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

1. • CommentRowNumber1.
   • CommentAuthorAlexisHazell
   • CommentTimeMay 15th 2014
   • PermaLink
   Author: AlexisHazell
   Format: MarkdownItexI've modified [[types and logic - table]] to show that type theory 'substitution' is not only category theory 'composition' but category theory 'pullback' as well. In doing so, I added a footnote linking to a post explaining this. However, although the footnote itself shows up on both the [[types and logic - table]] page and the [[relation between type theory and category theory]] page, the superscript '1' in the table doesn't show up on the latter, only on the former.

   I’ve modified types and logic - table to show that type theory ’substitution’ is not only category theory ’composition’ but category theory ’pullback’ as well. In doing so, I added a footnote linking to a post explaining this. However, although the footnote itself shows up on both the types and logic - table page and the relation between type theory and category theory page, the superscript ’1’ in the table doesn’t show up on the latter, only on the former.

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeMay 15th 2014
   • (edited May 15th 2014)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexThanks, good point. I don't know how to deal with that technical issue, but I have a suggestion that would get rid of the problem,too: we should have an nLab page that discusses this, not just a pointer to an external source. In particular that nLab page should mention that if we consistently think of dependent types in terms of their classifying maps, then "substitution is composition", after all. :-)

   Thanks, good point.

   I don’t know how to deal with that technical issue, but I have a suggestion that would get rid of the problem,too:

   we should have an nLab page that discusses this, not just a pointer to an external source.

   In particular that nLab page should mention that if we consistently think of dependent types in terms of their classifying maps, then “substitution is composition”, after all. :-)

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorAlexisHazell
   • CommentTimeMay 16th 2014
   • PermaLink
   Author: AlexisHazell
   Format: MarkdownItexFair enough! I'll leave that task to someone with more knowledge than me. :-) However, the bug I've mentioned is mysteriously affecting at least one other page as well; the footnote I created is included on the [[Burali-Forti's paradox]] page, despite no footnote reference on that page!

   Fair enough! I’ll leave that task to someone with more knowledge than me. :-)

   However, the bug I’ve mentioned is mysteriously affecting at least one other page as well; the footnote I created is included on the Burali-Forti’s paradox page, despite no footnote reference on that page!

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeMay 17th 2014
   • (edited May 17th 2014)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexOkay, at _[[types and logic - table]]_ I have removed the footnote and expanded the entry which used to say "composition" to read "composition of classifying maps / pullback of display maps". Notice that at _[[substitution]]_ there is a section _[on categorical semantics](http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/substitution#CategoricalSemantics)_. If anyone wants to further expand on "substitution is pullback/is composition", then this would be the canonical place to do so.

   Okay, at types and logic - table I have removed the footnote and expanded the entry which used to say “composition” to read “composition of classifying maps / pullback of display maps”.

   Notice that at substitution there is a section on categorical semantics. If anyone wants to further expand on “substitution is pullback/is composition”, then this would be the canonical place to do so.

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeMay 17th 2014
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexAh, and so the effect of that "bug" has also disappeared: the table _[[types and logic - table]]_ is included in the "floating table of context" _[[type theory - contents]]_ which in turn is included in all entries related to type theory. Hence making the first table have a footnote apparently propagates that footnote to the bottom of every page into which it is included (which does actually make sense, in a way, were it not for the fact that one of the including stages is a "pulldown" inclusion). Anyway, the footnote is gone.

   Ah, and so the effect of that “bug” has also disappeared: the table types and logic - table is included in the “floating table of context” type theory - contents which in turn is included in all entries related to type theory. Hence making the first table have a footnote apparently propagates that footnote to the bottom of every page into which it is included (which does actually make sense, in a way, were it not for the fact that one of the including stages is a “pulldown” inclusion).

   Anyway, the footnote is gone.

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeMay 17th 2014
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexI did some general further cross-linking of the entries related to this issue. In particular I added pointers to _[[classifying morphism]]_ and added there a brief comment on classifying dependent types and pointing back to _[[substitution]]_.

   I did some general further cross-linking of the entries related to this issue. In particular I added pointers to classifying morphism and added there a brief comment on classifying dependent types and pointing back to substitution.