On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 8:43 PM, Dimitris Tsementzis <dtse...@princeton.edu
> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> Let’s say a type theory TT is *initial* if its term model C_TT is initial
> among TT-models, where TT-models are models of the categorical semantics of
> type theory (e.g. CwFs/C-systems etc.) with enough extra structure to model
> the rules of TT.
>

I like the examples, but I would give a different analysis of what they
tell us.

The definition of “initial” presupposes that we have already defined what
“TT-models” means — i.e. what the categorical semantics should be.  There
is as yet no proposed general definition of this (as far as I know).

Heuristically, there’s certainly a large class of type theories where we
understand what the categorical semantics are, and all clearly agree.  But
rules like un-annotated cumulativity are *not* in this class.  It’s not
clear what should correspond to un-annotated cumulativity, as a rule in
CwA’s (or CwF’s, C-systems, etc).  A certain operation on terms?  An
operation, plus the condition that it’s mono?  An assumption that terms of
one type are literally a subset of terms of the other?  Some of these will
make initiality clearly false; others may make it true but very
non-obviously so (that is, more non-obviously than usual).

So I don’t think we can say “These theories aren’t initial.” — but more
like “We’re not sure what the correct initiality statement is for these
theories, and some versions one might try are false.”  But I definitely
agree that they show

>  the claim that e.g. Book HoTT or 2LTT is initial cannot be considered
obvious

–p.



Then we have the following, building on an example of Voevodsky’s.
>




> *OBSERVATION*. Any type theory which contains the following rules
> (admissible or otherwise)
>
> Γ |- T *Type*
> ————————  (C)
> Γ |- B(T) *Type*
>
> Γ |- t : T
> ————————  (R1)
> Γ |- t : B(T)
>
> Γ |- t : T
> ————————  (R2)
> Γ |- p(t) : B(T)
>
> together with axioms that there is a type T0 in any context and a term t0
> : T0 in any context, is not initial.
>
> *PROOF SKETCH.* Let TT be such a type theory. Consider the type theory
> TT* which replaces (R1) with the rule
>
> Γ |- t : T
> ————————  (R1*)
> Γ |- q(t) : B(T)
>
> i.e. the rule which adds an “annotation” to a term t from T that becomes a
> term of B(T). Then the category of TT-models is isomorphic (in fact, equal)
> to the category of TT*-models and in particular the term models C_TT and
> C_TT* are both TT-models. But there are two distinct TT-model homomorphisms
> from C_TT to C_TT*, one which sends p(t0) to pq(t0) and one which sends
> p(t0) to qp(t0) (where p(t0) is regarded as an element of Tm_{C_TT} (empty,
> B(B(T0))), i.e. of the set of terms of B(B(T0)) in the empty context as
> they are interpreted in the term model C_TT).
>
> *COROLLARY. *Any (non-trivial) type theory with a “cumulativity" rule for
> universes, i.e. a rule of the form
>
> Γ |- A : U0
> ————————  (U-cumul)
> Γ |- A : U1
>
> is not initial. In particular, the type theory in the HoTT book is not
> initial (because of (U-cumul)), and two-level type theory 2LTT as presented
> here <https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.03307> is not initial (because of the
> rule (FIB-PRE)).
>
> The moral of this small observation, if correct, is not of course that
> type theories with the guilty rules cannot be made initial by appropriate
> modifications to either the categorical semantics or the syntax, but rather
> that a bit of care might be required for this task. One modification would
> be to define their categorical semantics to be such that certain identities
> hold that are not generally included in the definitions of
> CwF/C-system/…-gadgets (e.g. that the inclusion operation on universes is
> idempotent). Another modification would be to add annotations (by replacing
> (R1) with (R1*) as above) and extra definitional equalities ensuring that
> annotations commute with type constructors.
>
> But without some such explicit modification, I think that the claim that
> e.g. Book HoTT or 2LTT is initial cannot be considered obvious, or even
> entirely correct.
>
> Best,
>
> Dimitris
>
> PS: Has something like the above regarding cumulativity rules has been
> observed before — if so can someone provide a relevant reference?
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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 HomotopyTypeThe...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>