Not signed in (Sign In)

Start a new discussion

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-categories 2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry beauty bundles calculus categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology combinatorics complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science connection constructive constructive-mathematics cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry differential-topology digraphs duality education elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration finite foundations functional-analysis functor galois-theory gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck 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 infinity integration integration-theory k-theory lie lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic manifolds mathematics measure-theory modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology multicategories noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pasting philosophy physics planar 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-theory subobject superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory 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.
    • CommentAuthorspitters
    • CommentTimeApr 24th 2018

    Updating reference to cubical type theory. This page need more work.

    diff, v55, current

  1. Moved

    Morally, this says that Type behaves like an object classifier.

    to accompany the discussion of the name “univalence”,

    and dropped the “morally” since “behaves like” seems to already be sufficiently hedged.

    This is a belated follow-up to #59-60.

    diff, v56, current

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorColin Zwanziger
    • CommentTimeSep 16th 2018
    • (edited Sep 16th 2018)

    Numbers 59-60 of univalence, that is.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeSep 16th 2018

    Colin, I haven’t tracked down who put the “morally” there – maybe he/she should be the one to respond – but I wouldn’t have removed it. The term has a particular currency with mathematicians; you might find interesting these remarks by Eugenia Cheng.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorColin Zwanziger
    • CommentTimeSep 16th 2018
    • (edited Sep 16th 2018)

    I’m not really opposed to restoring the use of “morally” there.

    The main point of the edit was to group the mention of the object classifier with the discussion of the fibration of types. The sentence then required some rephrasing.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeSep 16th 2018

    I’ll let others decide. But it sounds to me that putting “morally” there had a more positive value than hedging.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeSep 18th 2018

    Clarify the relationship between univalence and object classifiers.

    diff, v57, current

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeSep 18th 2018

    I didn’t put “morally” back in; it doesn’t seem to me necessary here because we do have precise statements about how univalence corresponds to object classifiers. However, I won’t object if anyone else wants to put it back.

  2. I added

    A proof of the full result has been announced by Simon Huber and Krzysztof Kapulkin (Huber 19).

    Details may require adjustments to the succeeding paragraphs.

    diff, v59, current

  3. Wrong person, Sattler not Huber.

    diff, v59, current

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTime4 days ago

    So all open issues of HoTT as a foundation are being sorted out these days:

    Mike showed that all \infty-topos are models, Eric Finster gave a strategy for internalizing infinitary algebraic structure., Kapulkin-Sattler claim proof of homotopy canonicity.

    But I heard in Paris the other week that somebody found a gap in Eric’s argument and apparently it wasn’t immediate how to fix it. But I don’t know any details.

    • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTime4 days ago

    Is there anyone we know that was actually in Oslo today at Sattler’s talk?

    • CommentRowNumber13.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTime4 days ago

    Carlo Angiuli reports from the talk (here). Or almost. At least on the title of the talk.

    • CommentRowNumber14.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTime4 days ago

    Re: #11, in Paolo Capriotti’s HoTTEST talk in April he mentioned that Eric’s definition (which was always just a plausible-sounding proposal, subject to confirmation or refutation) seems to be wrong (has some extra junk of some sort) starting in some dimension around n=4n=4 (I don’t remember exactly). But he didn’t give any details, and in particular it’s unclear to me how serious the problem, whether it blows the whole thing out of the water or whether there might be a quick fix.

    • CommentRowNumber15.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTime3 days ago

    Thanks, Mike.

    Now Darin Morrison reminds me that he still thinks he has a solution, we had briefly talked about it here, but that he has not received feedback from anyone yet. Maybe there is a language barrier, as he is somewhat from a different community, I gather. But might you be able to digest what exactly his proposal is?

    • CommentRowNumber16.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTime3 days ago

    Maybe in an alternate universe where I had several days available to stare at it… (-:O

    • CommentRowNumber17.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTime3 days ago

    Right, if all there is available is his Agda code, he should write some prose to go with it. I have suggested it to him, hope he will look into it.

    • CommentRowNumber18.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTime3 days ago

    Has he announced this anywhere, other than through you on the nForum? Or asked around in the community for feedback?

    • CommentRowNumber19.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTime3 days ago
    • (edited 3 days ago)

    Maybe not. All that I am aware of is a Twitter message of his from months ago, where he essentially just pointed to his github repository (and now I don’t find that tweet anymore – not that it would matter much). But he says he is not in academia anymore and didn’t find time to make a prose writeup. Hm.

    • CommentRowNumber20.
    • CommentAuthorericfinster
    • CommentTime45 minutes ago

    Unfortunately, it seems that Paolo’s flaw will turn out to be fatal for my approach, at least in vanilla Martin-Lof type theory. I had a number of possible “quick-fixes” in mind, but working through them in Stockholm with Peter and Guillaume, we could not seem to get any of them to go through. A rough way to describe the problem is that, while my definition generates an infinite number of coherences, these coherences are not “compatible” enough with the coherences of the universe (which is the terminal example of the structure i was trying to axiomatize). In order to make them compatible, we would have to finish the construction of the universe itself and hence we end up with the usual kind of circularity. So it looks bad … :(

    • CommentRowNumber21.
    • CommentAuthorericfinster
    • CommentTime44 minutes ago

    Also, I submitted an issue on Darin’s github page asking for an example of how to use his definition to define the interchange law. Perhaps a simple example like this will serve to clarify his approach.

Add your comments
  • Please log in or leave your comment as a "guest post". If commenting as a "guest", please include your name in the message as a courtesy. Note: only certain categories allow guest posts.
  • To produce a hyperlink to an nLab entry, simply put double square brackets around its name, e.g. [[category]]. To use (La)TeX mathematics in your post, make sure Markdown+Itex is selected below and put your mathematics between dollar signs as usual. Only a subset of the usual TeX math commands are accepted: see here for a list.

  • (Help)