From: Nicolai Kraus <nicola...@gmail.com>
To: "Joyal, André" <"joyal..."@uqam.ca>,
"Thomas Streicher" <"stre..."@mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de>
Cc: David Roberts <drober...@gmail.com>,
Thorsten Altenkirch <Thorsten....@nottingham.ac.uk>,
Michael Shulman <shu...@sandiego.edu>,
Steve Awodey <awo...@cmu.edu>,
"homotopyt...@googlegroups.com" <homotopyt...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [HoTT] Identity versus equality
Date: Sun, 10 May 2020 20:18:09 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CA+AZBBqkPoba=ra4pW2XpphTfB24toBCyco2kJaYXkA6xMPk=w@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bb28fb70-88e5-ea38-9550-f7f952d76b62@gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5896 bytes --]
In the last paragraph of my message below, the words "deep" and "shallow"
have to be swapped.
On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 5:51 PM Nicolai Kraus <nicola...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Dear André and everyone,
>
> I feel it's worth pointing out that there are two strategies to express
> "everyday mathematics" in HoTT. In CS-speak, they would probably be
> called "shallow embedding" and "deep embedding". Shallow embedding is
> the "HoTT style", deep embedding is the "pre-HoTT type theory style".
> Shallow means that one uses that the host language shares structure with
> the object one wants to define, while deep means one doesn't. To explain
> what I mean, let's look at the type theoretic definition of a group (a
> 1-group, not a higher group).
>
> Definition using deep embedding: A group is a tuple
> (X,h,e,o,i,assoc,...), where
> X : Type -- carrier
> h : is-0-truncated(X) -- carrier is set
> e : X -- unit
> o : X * X -> X -- composition
> i : X -> X -- inverses
> assoc : (h o g) o f = h o (g o f)
> ... [and so on]
>
> Definition using shallow embedding: A group is a pointed connected 1-type.
>
> Fortunately, these definitions are equivalent (via the Eilenberg-McLan
> spaces construction). But they behave differently when we want to work
> with them or change them. It's easy to change the second definition to
> define infinity groups instead of 1-groups (see e.g. arXiv:1802.04315 ,
> arXiv:1805.02069, and Ulrik's comment). But it's unclear whether there
> is a nice way for the first definition. The second definition has better
> computational properties than the first.
>
> When you say this:
>
> > But I find it frustrating that I cant do my everyday mathematics with
> it.
> > For example, I cannot say
> >
> > (1) Let X:\Delta^{op}---->Type be a simplicial type;
>
> You are referring to shallow embedding. In everyday mathematics, you
> don't say (1) either. You probably say (1) with "Type" replaced by "Set"
> or by "simplicial set". Both of these can be expressed straightforwardly
> in type theory using only (h-)sets (i.e. embedding deeply).
>
> We strive to use shallow embedding as often as possible for the reasons
> in the above example. But let's assume that we *can* say (1) in HoTT,
> using "Type", because we find some encoding that we're reasonably happy
> with; there's a question which I've asked myself before:
>
> Will we not destroy the advantages of deep (over shallow) embedding if
> we fall back to encodings (and thus destroy the main selling point of
> HoTT)? For me, the justification of still using deep embedding is that
> statements using encodings (e.g. "the universe is a higher category)
> might still imply statements which don't use encodings and are
> interesting. However, if we want to develop a theory of certain higher
> structures for it's own sake, then it's not so clear to me whether it's
> really better to use the HoTT-style deep embedding.
>
> Kind regards,
> Nicolai
>
>
> On 09/05/2020 21:18, Joyal, André wrote:
> > Dear Thomas,
> >
> > You wrote
> >
> > <<In my opinion the currenrly implemented type theories are essentially
> > for proving and not for computing.
> > But if you haven't mechanized PART of equational reasoning it would be
> > much much more painful than it still is.
> > But that is "only" a pragmatic issue.>>
> >
> > Type theory has very nice features. I wish they could be preserved and
> developped further.
> > But I find it frustrating that I cant do my everyday mathematics with it.
> > For example, I cannot say
> >
> > (1) Let X:\Delta^{op}---->Type be a simplicial type;
> > (2) Let G be a type equipped with a group structure;
> > (3) Let BG be the classifying space of a group G;
> > (4) Let Gr be the category of groups;
> > (5) Let SType be the category of simplical types.
> > (6) Let Map(X,Y) be the simplicial types of maps X--->Y
> > between two simplicial types X and Y.
> >
> > It is crucial to have (1)
> > For example, a group could be defined to
> > be a simplicial object satisfying the Segal conditions.
> > The classifying space of a group is the colimit of this simplicial
> object.
> > The category of groups can be defined to be
> > a simplicial objects satisfiying the Rezk conditions (a complete Segal
> space).
> >
> > Is there some aspects of type theory that we may give up as a price
> > for solving these problems ?
> >
> >
> > Best,
> > André
> >
> > ________________________________________
> > From: Thomas Streicher [stre...@mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de]
> > Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2020 2:43 PM
> > To: Joyal, André
> > Cc: David Roberts; Thorsten Altenkirch; Michael Shulman; Steve Awodey;
> homotopyt...@googlegroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [HoTT] Identity versus equality
> >
> > Dear Andr'e,
> >
> >> By the way, if type theory is not very effective in practice, why do we
> insist that it should always compute?
> >> The dream of a formal system in which every proof leads to an actual
> computation may be far off.
> >> Not that we should abandon it, new discoveries are always possible.
> >> Is there a version of type theory for proving and verifying, less
> >> for computing?
> > In my opinion the currenrly implemented type theories are essentially
> > for proving and not for computing.
> > But if you haven't mechanized PART of equational reasoning it would be
> > much much more painful than it still is.
> > But that is "only" a pragmatic issue.
> >
> >> The notations of type theory are very useful in homotopy theory.
> >> But the absence of simplicial types is a serious obstacle to
> applications.
> > In cubical type theory they sort of live well with cubes not being
> > fibrant... They have them as pretypes. But maybe I misunderstand...
> >
> > Thomas
> >
>
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 7081 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-05-10 19:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 61+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-05-05 8:47 Ansten Mørch Klev
2020-05-06 16:02 ` [HoTT] " Joyal, André
2020-05-06 19:01 ` Steve Awodey
2020-05-06 19:18 ` Michael Shulman
2020-05-06 19:31 ` Steve Awodey
2020-05-06 20:30 ` Joyal, André
2020-05-06 22:52 ` Thorsten Altenkirch
2020-05-06 22:54 ` Thorsten Altenkirch
2020-05-06 23:29 ` Joyal, André
2020-05-07 6:11 ` Egbert Rijke
2020-05-07 6:58 ` Thorsten Altenkirch
2020-05-07 9:04 ` Ansten Mørch Klev
2020-05-07 10:09 ` Thomas Streicher
2020-05-07 16:13 ` Joyal, André
2020-05-07 21:41 ` David Roberts
2020-05-07 23:43 ` Joyal, André
2020-05-07 23:56 ` David Roberts
2020-05-08 6:40 ` Thomas Streicher
2020-05-08 21:06 ` Joyal, André
2020-05-08 23:44 ` Steve Awodey
2020-05-09 2:46 ` Joyal, André
2020-05-09 3:09 ` Jon Sterling
[not found] ` <CADZEZBY+3z6nrRwsx9p-HqYuTxAnwMUHv7JasHy8aoy1oaGPcw@mail.gmail.com>
2020-05-09 2:50 ` Steve Awodey
2020-05-09 8:28 ` Thomas Streicher
2020-05-09 15:53 ` Joyal, André
2020-05-09 18:43 ` Thomas Streicher
2020-05-09 20:18 ` Joyal, André
2020-05-09 21:27 ` Jon Sterling
2020-05-10 2:19 ` Joyal, André
2020-05-10 3:04 ` Jon Sterling
2020-05-10 9:09 ` Thomas Streicher
2020-05-10 11:59 ` Thorsten Altenkirch
2020-05-10 11:46 ` Thorsten Altenkirch
2020-05-10 14:01 ` Michael Shulman
2020-05-10 14:20 ` Nicolai Kraus
2020-05-10 14:34 ` Michael Shulman
2020-05-10 14:52 ` Nicolai Kraus
2020-05-10 15:16 ` Michael Shulman
2020-05-10 15:23 ` Nicolai Kraus
2020-05-10 16:13 ` Nicolai Kraus
2020-05-10 16:28 ` Michael Shulman
2020-05-10 18:18 ` Nicolai Kraus
2020-05-10 19:15 ` Thorsten Altenkirch
2020-05-10 19:20 ` Thorsten Altenkirch
2020-05-10 12:53 ` Ulrik Buchholtz
2020-05-10 14:01 ` Michael Shulman
2020-05-10 14:27 ` Nicolai Kraus
2020-05-10 15:35 ` Ulrik Buchholtz
2020-05-10 16:30 ` Michael Shulman
2020-05-10 18:56 ` Nicolai Kraus
2020-05-10 18:04 ` Joyal, André
2020-05-11 7:33 ` Thomas Streicher
2020-05-11 14:54 ` Joyal, André
2020-05-11 16:37 ` stre...
2020-05-11 16:42 ` Michael Shulman
2020-05-11 17:27 ` Thomas Streicher
2020-05-10 16:51 ` Nicolai Kraus
2020-05-10 18:57 ` Michael Shulman
2020-05-10 19:18 ` Nicolai Kraus [this message]
2020-05-10 20:22 ` Michael Shulman
2020-05-10 22:08 ` Joyal, André
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CA+AZBBqkPoba=ra4pW2XpphTfB24toBCyco2kJaYXkA6xMPk=w@mail.gmail.com' \
--to="nicola..."@gmail.com \
--cc="Thorsten...."@nottingham.ac.uk \
--cc="awo..."@cmu.edu \
--cc="drober..."@gmail.com \
--cc="homotopyt..."@googlegroups.com \
--cc="joyal..."@uqam.ca \
--cc="shu..."@sandiego.edu \
--cc="stre..."@mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).