categories - Category Theory list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Thomas Streicher <streicher@mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de>
To: Jon Sterling <jon@jonmsterling.com>
Cc: Nath Rao <khazanarao@gmail.com>,
	"categories@mq.edu.au" <categories@mq.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Fibrewise opposite fibration
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2024 11:04:27 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Zcs+q7Y8mGpbDsBE@mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8aed544d-1082-4a75-b571-aadfadfc29e0@app.fastmail.com>

Dear Nath and Jon,

I am naturally sympathizing with Nath's remark.
Thanks, Jon, for giving precise reference for why global choice
implies classical logic in HoTT (it is not inconsistent as far as I know).
I am grateful for the quite non-ideological discussion of the issue BTW !

My scepticism w.r.t. HoTT is not ideological (or "self destructive" as
some people may have thought) but was rather motivated by the fact that it
caused problems with one of my favourite notions of category theory, namely
Grothendieck fibrations. There is the notion of Street fibration which
you obtain when closing Groth. fibrations by closing under categorical
equivalences. But there are not too many examples as far as I can see.

There is a way out of it suggested by Ahrens and Lumsdaine, namely
"displayed categories", which are systematically employed in Jon's very
nice notes on relative category theory with C. Angiuli. This is certainly a way
how to proceed in case one wants to keep the univalence principle without
enforcing classical logic.

But it makes things technically more complicated and I personally prefer a
non-univalent setting. Lurie also can live without univalence both in
his book and the Kerodon.
This confirms my impression that univalence is a radical thought experiment
whose consequences still have to be evaluated. For me (and many other people)
foundations is not a religious business but rather a question which setting is
the most convenient one for doing the things one wants to do in maths. This
can be evaluated only a posteriori and a certain pluralism might be a healthy
attitude.

In any case I think w.r.t. fibered categories the most reasonable thing
seems to be cleaved fibrations and arbitrary cartesian functors. It is
foundationally tolerant and close to the practice of fibered category theory.

Thomas



----------

You're receiving this message because you're a member of the Categories mailing list group from Macquarie University.

Leave group:
https://outlook.office365.com/owa/categories@mq.edu.au/groupsubscription.ashx?source=EscalatedMessage&action=leave&GuestId=4eb9b40c-9b3a-48a5-9781-836e5a171e8b

  reply	other threads:[~2024-02-13 10:19 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-01-28  0:51 David Roberts
2024-01-28 11:54 ` Jon Sterling
2024-01-28 20:03   ` Thomas Streicher
2024-01-30  6:42     ` David Roberts
2024-01-31  0:35       ` Richard Garner
2024-01-31 19:31         ` Christian Sattler
2024-01-31 23:41           ` streicher
2024-02-01  4:48             ` Martin Bidlingmaier
2024-02-01  9:43             ` Jon Sterling
2024-02-01 11:06               ` Thomas Streicher
2024-02-01 11:18                 ` Jon Sterling
2024-02-01 11:46                   ` Thomas Streicher
     [not found]                     ` <ZbuFZoT9b9K8o7zi@mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de>
2024-02-02 10:11                       ` Thomas Streicher
2024-02-01 11:26                 ` Christian Sattler
2024-02-09  0:02 ` Dusko Pavlovic
2024-02-09  1:48   ` Michael Barr, Prof.
2024-02-09 19:55     ` Dusko Pavlovic
2024-02-10  6:28       ` David Roberts
2024-02-10  8:42         ` Jon Sterling
2024-02-09 11:25   ` Fibrewise opposite fibration + computers Sergei Soloviev
2024-02-09 20:25     ` Dusko Pavlovic
2024-02-12 13:20   ` Fibrewise opposite fibration Nath Rao
2024-02-13  8:16     ` Jon Sterling
2024-02-13 10:04       ` Thomas Streicher [this message]
2024-02-13 10:56         ` Jon Sterling
2024-02-13 11:38           ` Thomas Streicher
2024-02-13 11:53             ` Jon Sterling
2024-02-13 12:18               ` Thomas Streicher
2024-02-13 16:35                 ` Thomas Streicher
2024-02-23  1:50                   ` Dusko Pavlovic
2024-02-23  1:52                     ` Dusko Pavlovic
2024-02-23  1:42     ` Dusko Pavlovic
2024-02-26  7:31       ` Dusko Pavlovic

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=Zcs+q7Y8mGpbDsBE@mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de \
    --to=streicher@mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de \
    --cc=categories@mq.edu.au \
    --cc=jon@jonmsterling.com \
    --cc=khazanarao@gmail.com \
    /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).