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.
I see that from 15 March Dropbox is no longer going to allow a publicly accessible folder. So I was thinking of uploading some files to my personal web here, but when trying to edit the max size of file, realized I don’t have the system password. Is there one for each personal web, or a master one?
There’s a master one. I knew it at one point, but I’m not sure whether I still do.
A bit of googling suggests that maybe you can still create “public links” to individual files in dropbox folders? https://www.dropbox.com/help/167
I see, thanks. Well if the address of the public link changes to my ’Expressing the Structure’ paper, which you kindly cite in your latest paper, I’ll let you know.
If you want a more stable URL for me to cite, you could make a wikipage for the paper on your personal web that contains a link to wherever the current PDF is.
Good idea. So here is such a wikipage link: https://ncatlab.org/davidcorfield/show/Expressing+%27The+Structure+of%27+in+Homotopy+Type+Theory
By the way, I posted a comment at the Cafe about your article.
A couple of very minor things:
and also more novel synthetic mathematics using of nonclassical structure I’m struggling with the grammar.
The reference [102] … Cambridge, 2015, still not out yet. Hopefully this year.
David,
sorry for the slow reaction. I have increased the upload size maximum on your web. Please check if it works now.
Great thanks, uploads are working now.
@David: There’s a before the on page 6 and later there isn’t one. Is that right?
In any case, if people don’t know how the binding order of all those symbols go, I’d put that whole expression in brackets,
or write it in two lines
Thanks, Nikolaj.
is meant to signal a definition, as in the HoTT book, but now I look I see they never seem to use the symbol to the right of a . Is that just for clarity?
Thanks for the fixes David.
The HoTT book mostly doesn’t use at all, only in the appendix. But even when being more formal, I don’t think I would normally use the “being defined to equal” symbol in that way, since it’s not a judgment. Unless we’re working in a type theory that has an internal notion of “definition” (which of course real-world systems like Coq and Agda do, but mathematical type theories don’t usually), defining something to equal something else is a meta-theoretic shorthand rather than part of the formal system. I suppose one could say that it takes place in a context, though.
The final ’it’ refers to defining something to equal something else? How then would you write such a definition if it takes place in a context? Perhaps verbally, e.g.,
Relative to context , we define ,
where all appear as free variable in .
In ordinary mathematics, which the book strives to emulate, we don’t usually feel the need to mention contexts at all. If there is something currently in the context, then when we define something, it’s obviously relative to that, and we might or might not notate it depending on whether the dependence matters. Ordinary mathematics also blurs the line between hypothetical judgments and functions , so any time we define something in a context we might as well be just defining a function in the empty context.
Hmm, so ? And .
I suppose.
1 to 15 of 15