Hi Peter, I've been thinking about such eliminators lately too. It seems that they are derivable from ordinary eliminator for most type-theoretic constructions as long as we have identity types and sigma types. I did not write down proofs in full detail, but I sketched them for identity types, sigma types, and coproducts and I think this also should be true for pushouts. Now, when I say that we have identity types I mean a strong version of Id: Γ |– a : A Γ, y:A, u:Id(a,y) |– C(y,u) type Γ |– d : C(a,a,r(a)) type Γ |— b : A Γ |— p : Id(a,b) —————————————— Γ |— J(a, (y,u)C, d, b, p) : C(b,p) We can prove all the usual constructions for identity types using this version of J including transport and extensionality for sigma types. To define the "Frobenius version" of this J, we construct a term t : (b,p) = (a,r(a)) using extensionality for sigma. Then we transport c along t from Δ(b,p) to Δ(a,r(a)), and substitute this in d. At this point, we have a term d' of type C(a,r(a),t_*(c)). Then we use the fact that the type of triples \Sigma (q : \Sigma (b : A) Id(a,b)) Id((b,p),q) is contractible (this type is of the form \Sigma (x : A) Id(a,x) and we can prove that such types are contractible using the strong version of J). Thus, we have a path from ((a,r(a),t) to ((b,p),r((b,p))) and transporting d' along this path gives us a term of type C(b,p,c). Similar argument shows that the "Frobenius version" of sigma eliminator is definable. We just prove that p = (\pi_1(p),\pi_2(p)) and then transport terms back and forth along this path. The proof for coproducts is slightly more difficult, but the idea is similar. I constructed Frobenius versions of various eliminators in my recent preprint https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.08038 (I call Frobenius eliminators "local" and the usual ones "global"). I used there a non-standard version of HoTT, but as I mentioned before I believe that it should be possible to construct them in the ordinary HoTT (with sigma and Id types only). I also want to mention that Frobenius eliminators are definable only when our constructions are stable under substitution. If we do not assume that the type former, the constructors, and the non-Frobenius eliminator of some construction are stable under substitution, then we can interpret them in any category in which the corresponding categorical constructions are not necessarily stable under pullbacks, but this is not true for Frobenius eliminators. 2018-07-12 18:15 GMT+03:00 Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine : > Briefly: I’m looking for background on the “Frobenius version” of > elimination rules for inductive types. I’m aware of a few pieces of work > mentioning this for identity types, and nothing at all for other inductive > types. I’d be grateful to hear if anyone else can point me to anything > I’ve missed in the literature — even just to a reference that lays out the > Frobenius versions of the rules for anything beyond Id-types. The > proximate motivation is just that I want to use these versions in a paper, > and it’d be very nice to have a reference rather than cluttering up the > paper by writing them all out in full… > > In more detail: Here are two versions of the eliminator for identity types: > > Γ, x,y:A, u:Id(x,y) |– C(x,y,u) type > Γ, x:A |– d(x) : C(x,x,r(x)) type > Γ |— a, b : A > Γ |— p : Id(a,b) > —————————————— > Γ |— J(A, (x,y,u)C, (x)d, a, b, p) : C(a,b,p) > > Γ, x,y:A, u:Id(x,y), w:Δ(x,y,u) |– C(x,y,u,w) type > Γ, x:A, w:Δ(x,x,r(x)) |– d(x,w) : C(x,x,r(x),w) type > Γ |— a, b : A > Γ |— p : Id(a,b) > Γ |— c : Δ(a,b,p) > —————————————— > Γ |— J(A, (x,y,u)Δ, (x,y,u,w)C, (x,w)d, a, b, p, c) : C(a,b,p,c) > > (where Δ(x,y,u) represents a “context extension”, i.e. some finite > sequence of variables and types w_1 : B_1(x,y,u), w_2 : B_2(x,y,u,w_1), …) > > I’ll call these the “simple version” and the “Frobenius version” of the > Id-elim rule; I’ll call Δ the “Frobenius context”. The simple version is a > special case of the Frobenius one; conversely, in the presence of Pi-types, > the Frobenius version is derivable from the simple one. > > Most presentations just give the simple version. The first mention of the > Frobenius version I know of is in [Gambino, Garner 2008]; the connection > with categorical Frobenius conditions is made in [van den Berg, Garner > 2008], and some further helpful explanatory pointers are given in [Gambino, > Sattler 2015]. It’s based on this that I use “Frobenius” to refer to these > versions; I’m open to suggestions of better terminology. (All references > are linked below.) > > The fact that the Frobenius version is strictly stronger is known in > folklore, but not written up anywhere I know of. One way to show this is > to take any non right proper model category (e.g. the model structure for > quasi-categories on simplicial sets), and take the model of given by its > (TC,F) wfs; this will model the simple version of Id-types but not the > Frobenius version. > > Are you sure this is true? It seems that we can interpret the strong version of J even in non right proper model categories. Then the argument I gave above shows that the Frobenius version is also definable. > Overall, I think the consensus among everyone who’s thought about this > (starting from [Gambino, Garner 2008], as far as I know) is that if one’s > studying Id-types in the absence of Pi-types, then one needs to use the > Frobenius version. > > One can also of course write Frobenius versions of the eliminators for > other inductive types — eg Sigma-types, W-types, … However, I don’t know > anywhere that even mentions these versions! > > I remember believing at some point that at least for Sigma-types, the > Frobenius version is in fact derivable from the simple version (without > assuming Pi-types or any other type formers), which would explain why > no-one’s bothered considering it… but if that’s the case, it’s eluding me > now. On the other hand, I also can’t think of a countermodel showing the > Frobenius version is strictly stronger — wfs models won’t do for this, > since they have strong Sigma-types given by composition of fibrations. > > So as far as I can see, if one’s studying Sigma-types in the absence of > Pi-types, one again might want the Frobenius version; and it seems likely > that the situation for other inductive types would be similar. > > But I’m not sure, and I feel I may be overlooking or forgetting something > obvious. What have others on the list thought about this? Does anyone > have a reference discussing the Frobenius versions of inductive types other > than identity types, or at least giving the rules for them? > > Best, > –Peter. > > References: > > - Gambino, Garner, 2008, “The Identity Type Weak Factorisation System”, > https://arxiv.org/abs/0803.4349 > - van den Berg, Garner, 2008, “Types are weak ω-groupoids”, > https://arxiv.org/pdf/0812.0298.pdf > - Gambino, Sattler, 2015, “The Frobenius condition, right properness, and > uniform fibrations”, https://arxiv.org/pdf/1510.00669.pdf > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Homotopy Type Theory" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to HomotopyTypeTheory+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Homotopy Type Theory" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to HomotopyTypeTheory+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.