Discussion of Homotopy Type Theory and Univalent Foundations
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [HoTT] Are cubical sets hypercomplete?
@ 2019-06-11 17:02 Michael Shulman
  0 siblings, 0 replies; only message in thread
From: Michael Shulman @ 2019-06-11 17:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: HomotopyTypeTheory@googlegroups.com

I have always assumed that cubical set models, like the simplicial set
model, satisfy Whitehead's principle (one form of which is the
statement that if all n-truncations of a type are contractible, then
it is contractible).  However, since cubical set models aren't known
to have an underlying model structure that's equivalent to simplicial
sets (and, as discussed previously on this list, at least one model
structure for cubical sets is known to be *not* equivalent to
simplicial sets), it's not completely obvious to me how to prove this.
Has anyone checked carefully that one or more cubical set models
satisfy Whitehead's principle -- and in particular, is the argument
fully constructive?  I could imagine that it might require something
like countable choice.

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.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/HomotopyTypeTheory/CAOvivQyPJsVzRtJw7uWX%3DLJH0-3r7TarVm%3DCSaqfoFU4k7foqw%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] only message in thread

only message in thread, other threads:[~2019-06-11 17:02 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: (only message) (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2019-06-11 17:02 [HoTT] Are cubical sets hypercomplete? Michael Shulman

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).