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-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry beauty bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-theory 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 galois-theory 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 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 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 sheaves simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory string string-theory 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).
  1. Made a start.


    v1, current

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorRichard Williamson
    • CommentTimeSep 24th 2018
    • (edited Sep 24th 2018)

    Hmm, no doubt this is naïve, but the axiom as formulated there seems a bit fishy to me. I mean if the proposition does not make use of size in any way, it is perfectly reasonable that it can be resized up and down. But if the proposition does make use of size, it seems difficult to believe it can be resized down. Take for instance the example I mentioned in another thread, that any category with all (large) colimits is a poset. How does that resize down?

    Edit: I suppose that this example cannot be formulated as a proposition in the intended sense?

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeSep 24th 2018

    I imagine your edit is correct. You’d need to express your proposed counterexample in HoTT as a certain type in 𝒰 i+1\mathcal{U}_{i+1}.

  2. Indeed. I’d be interested to know in a bit more detail why the example I mentioned is not a proposition in this sense, though (I imagine it is clear to an expert, but it is not to me!). I think it is clear that it lives in a higher universe than whichever universe one takes to correspond to small sets in the usual sense.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeSep 24th 2018

    There is no “how” to resizing; it’s an axiom which baldly asserts that all propositions can be resized down. “Any category with all large colimits is a poset” is indeed a proposition and thus, assuming propositional resizing, can be resized down. The axiom therefore produces a small proposition that is equivalent to the large one, but it doesn’t tell you “what” that proposition is other than “the result of resizing this other one”.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorRichard Williamson
    • CommentTimeSep 24th 2018
    • (edited Sep 24th 2018)

    Thanks! What I was getting at was that I do not know how to think about it, because naïvely it seems that some propositions might not be able to be sized down. In the HoTT book, though, it says that the axiom can be proven under the assumption of excluded middle, i.e. non-constructively. In other words, it must make sense. Maybe I can put it another way. Even if Id(x,y)Id(x,y) is inhabited for all x,y:Ax, y : A, Id(x,y)Id(x,y) might be too large to live in a universe UU. So it would naïvely seem that there are clearly more propositions in VUV \supset U than in UU, unless VV is equivalent in size to UU, which is impossible. It seems like one would somehow have to be able to ’discard’ all except UU’s worth of the terms of Id(x,y)Id(x,y), and even with excluded middle that seems tricky to express.

    Can you suggest why this is not the right way to think about it, and how one should rather think of it?

    Edit: it might be enlightening to see the proof under the assumption of excluded middle.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeSep 24th 2018

    Proof assuming LEM: given P:Prop U i+1P:Prop_{U_{i+1}}, either P1P\simeq 1 or P0P\simeq 0 (that’s what LEM means). But we have 1:Prop U i1:Prop_{U_i} and 0:Prop U i0:Prop_{U_i}, so in either case there is a Q:Prop U iQ:Prop_{U_i} such that PQP\simeq Q.

    It’s true that Id(x,y)\mathrm{Id}(x,y) may be too large to live in a universe UU. That’s why the resizing axiom (as written here) states only that every proposition is some universe is equivalent (hence equal, assuming univalence) to a proposition in the smaller universe, not that it itself lives in a smaller one. A very “large” contractible type is nonetheless equivalent to a very small one. Voevodsky originally proposed a version of resizing as a rule stating that any proposition itself inhabits every universe:

    P:Prop U i+1P:Prop U i \frac{P:Prop_{U_{i+1}}}{P:Prop_{U_i}}

    but to my knowledge it is not known whether this is consistent.

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorRichard Williamson
    • CommentTimeSep 24th 2018
    • (edited Sep 24th 2018)

    Ah, thanks! I see much better now. As you say, the key seems to be that the notion of equivalence is ’poly-universal’, whereas I was thinking in terms more like the stricter version of the rule that you mention.

    Also I was thinking in more semantical terms, like I think one can if the proposition is ’semantically size-independent’, whereas this is not the right way to think about it, at least in general, here.

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)