Re: [HoTT] Re: Joyal's version of the notion of equivalence

[Vladimir Voevodsky <vlad...@ias.edu>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3401 bytes --]

I think the clearest formulation is my original one - as the condition of contractibility of the h-fibers.

This is also the first form in which it was introduced and the first explicit formulation and proof of the fact that it is a proposition.

Vladimir.





> On Oct 12, 2016, at 5:45 AM, Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine <p.l.lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Although I can see formal proofs that Joyal-equivalence is a proposition (or h-proposition), I am still trying to find the best formal proof that uncovers the essence of this fact. This is why I asked the question of were this formulation of equivalence comes from.
> 
> Like André suggested, I feel the nicest viewpoint is the fact that the “free (∞,1)-category on a Joyal-equivalence” is contractible.  At least in terms of intuition, the conceptually clearest argument I know for that is as follows.
> 
> Look at the *∞-groupoidification* of this free (∞,1)-category, considered as a space.  This is a cell complex which we can easily picture: two points x, y, three paths f, g, g' between x and y, and 2-cells giving homotopies f ~ g, f ~ g'.  It’s very clear geometrically that this is contractible.
> 
> But — the “free (∞,1)-category on a Joyal equivalence” is already an ∞-groupoid — and ∞-groupoidification is idempotent, since groupoids are a full subcategory.  So the original (∞,1)-category is equivalent to its groupoidification, so is contractible.
> 
> The same approach works for seeing why half-adjoint equivalences are good, but non-adjoint and bi-adjoint equivalences are not.  So as regards intuition, I think this is very nice.  However, I suspect that if one looks at all the work that goes into setting up the framework needed, then somewhere one will have already used some form of “equivalence is a proposition”.  So this is perhaps a little unsatisfactory formally, as it (a) needs a lot of background, and (b) may need to rely on some more elementary proof of the same fact.
> 
> 
> The earliest explicit discussion I know of this issue (i.e.“contractibility of the walking equivalence as a quality criterion for structured notions of equivalence) is in Steve Lack’s “A Quillen Model Structure for Bicategories”, fixing an error in his earlier “A Quillen Model Structure for 2-categories”, where he had used non-adjoint equivalences — see http://maths.mq.edu.au/~slack/papers/qmc2cat.html <http://maths.mq.edu.au/~slack/papers/qmc2cat.html>  Since it’s just 2-categorical, he’s able to use fully adjoint equivalences — doesn’t have to worry about half-adjointness/coherent-adjointness.  Adjoint equivalences of course go back much further — but I don’t know anywhere that this *reason* why they’re better is articulated, before Lack.
> 
> And for Joyal-equivalences, I don’t know anywhere they’re explicitly discussed at all, before HoTT.  Like Martín, I’d be really interested if anyone does know any earlier sources for them!
> 
> –p.
> 
> --
> 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 <mailto:HomotopyTypeThe...@googlegroups.com>.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>.


[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 4702 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 507 bytes --]