Discussion of Homotopy Type Theory and Univalent Foundations
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Thomas Streicher <stre...@mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de>
To: "Joyal, André" <"joyal..."@uqam.ca>
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: Sat, 9 May 2020 10:28:29 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200509082829.GA8417@mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8C57894C7413F04A98DDF5629FEC90B1652F54CC@Pli.gst.uqam.ca>

Dear Andr'e,

in most models of HoTT judgemental equality is equality of morphisms
and propositional equality is being homotopic.
But that is very different from its appearance in formal systems
where judgemental equality is much more restricted and just serves the
purpose of computation. There are artificial versions of type theory
with excessively few computation rules (only mere lambda calculus).

I fully understand why you find judgemental equality puzzling: it is
of very subjective nature. Mathematicians are typically interested in
equalities which are not decided by a rewrite system.
Judgemental equality has a very subjective nature because it
identifies a computational fragment of mathematics and there are many
different such. In Book HoTT one is as computational as traditional
intensional TT is and then adds univalence which lacks any
computational meaning. This is at least frivolous from the perspective
of a traditionalist type theorist... But it is ok and was implemented
in the NuPrl system.

Now for people who use type theory as a way of doing homotopy theory
synthetically the computational aspect is absolutely irrelevant a
priori. When one does ordinary math (including homotopy) computability
is a gimmick and no one would insist on everything being computable.

So if one has shown that the homotopy group of some pointed space is
Z_n for some n and one wants to know what n is then in Book HoTT you
have to guess n and then show that n equal your guess. In cubical type
theory in principle the n can be computed but it may take a very long
time (or the normalization proof is faulty :-)).

The main problem is that programs extracted from proofs are typically
not very efficient (well in rare cases they are but you have to be lucky).

Anyway, my brief answer to the question you raise is:
(1) conceptually judgemental equality is absolutely redundant
    and hopelessly subjective
(2) systems with a bare minimum of judgemental equality are not
    suitable for the various proof checkers in use since then every
    computation has to be done by hand.

Thomas


  parent reply	other threads:[~2020-05-09  8:28 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 [this message]
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
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=20200509082829.GA8417@mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de \
    --to="stre..."@mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de \
    --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 \
    /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).