I don't know how general this is exactly in practice, =
but I think it should work in the setting that appears in van de Berg, Frum=
in=C2=A0A homotopy-theoret=
ic model of function extensionality in the effective topos, which regar=
dless of the title is not just the effective topos, but any topos together =
with a interval object with connections, a dominance satisfying certain con=
ditions, with fibrations defined as maps with the rlp against pushout produ=
ct of endpoint inclusions and elements of the dominance (& in addition =
there should be some more conditions to ensure that free monads on pointed =
endofunctors exist).

------=_Part_3423_83963296.1496766174832--
------=_Part_3422_1729414886.1496766174831--
I'm a bit more c=
onfident that it works now. The class of weak fibrations is not cofibrantly=
generated in the usual sense (as I claimed in the first post), but they ar=
e in the more general sense by Christian Sattler in section 6 of=C2=A0The Equivalence Extension Property =
and Model Structures. Then a version of step 1 of the small object argu=
ment applies to Christian's definition, which gives a pointed endofunct=
or whose algebras are the weak fibrations. The same technique can also be u=
sed to describe "box flattening" (which should probably be called=
something else, like "cylinder flattening" in the general settin=
g).

Andrew

On Tuesday, 6 Jun= e 2017 15:35:36 UTC+2, Michael Shulman wrote:

On Tuesday, 6 Jun= e 2017 15:35:36 UTC+2, Michael Shulman wrote:

I'll be interested to see if you can make it work!

But I'd be much more interested if there is something that can be d= one

in a general class of models, rather than a particular one like

cubical or simplicial sets.

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 4:03 AM, Andrew Swan <wake...@gmail.com> wr= ote:

> Actually, I've just noticed that doesn't quite work - I wa= nt to say that a

> map is a weak fibration if it has a (uniform choice of) diagonal f= illers for

> lifting problems against generating cofibrations where the bottom = map

> factors through the projection I x V -> V, but that doesn't= seem to be

> cofibrantly generated. Maybe it's still possible to do somethi= ng like

> fibrant replacement anyway.

>

> Andrew

>

>

> On Tuesday, 6 June 2017 11:19:37 UTC+2, Andrew Swan wrote:

>>

>> I've been thinking a bit about abstract ways of looking at= the HITs in

>> cubical type theory, and I don't have a complete proof, bu= t I think actually

>> the same sort of thing should work for simplicial sets.

>>

>> We already know that the fibrations in the usual model structu= re on

>> simplicial sets can be defined as maps with the rlp against th= e pushout

>> product of generating cofibrations with interval endpoint incl= usions (in

>> Christian's new paper on model structures he cites for thi= s result Chapter

>> IV, section 2 of P. Gabriel and M. Zisman. Calculus of fractio= ns and

>> homotopy theory, but I'm not familiar with the proof mysel= f).

>>

>> Now a generating trivial cofibration is the pushout product of= a

>> generating cofibration with endpoint inclusion, so its codomai= n is of the

>> form I x V, where V is the codomain of the generating cofibrat= ion (which for

>> cubical sets and simplicial sets is representable). Then we ge= t another map

>> by composing with projection I x V -> V, which is a retract= of the

>> generating trivial cofibration and so also a trivial cofibrati= on. If a map

>> has the rlp against all such maps, then call it a weak fibrati= on. Then I

>> think the resulting awfs of "weak fibrant replacement&quo= t; should be stable

>> under pullback (although of course, the right maps in the fact= orisation are

>> only weak fibrations, not fibrations in general).

>>

>> Then eg for propositional truncation, construct the "fibr= ant truncation"

>> monad by the coproduct of truncation monad with weak fibrant r= eplacement. In

>> general, given a map X -> Y, the map ||X|| -> Y will onl= y be a weak

>> fibration, but if X -> Y is fibration then I think the map = ||X|| -> Y should

>> be also. I think the way to formulate this would be as a distr= ibutive law -

>> the fibrant replacement monad distributes over the (truncation= + weak

>> fibrant replacement) monad. It looks to me like the same thing= that works in

>> cubical sets should also work here - first define a "box = flattening"

>> operation for any fibration (i.e. the operation labelled as &q= uot;forward" in

>> Thierry's note), then show that this operation lifts throu= gh the HIT

>> constructors to give a box flattening operation on the HIT, th= en show that

>> in general weak fibration plus box flattening implies fibratio= n, (Maybe one

>> way to do this would be to note that the cubical set argument = is mostly done

>> internally in cubical type theory, and simplicial sets model c= ubical type

>> theory by Orton & Pitts, Axioms for Modelling Cubical Type= Theory in a

>> Topos)

>>

>> Best,

>> Andrew

>>

>>

>>

>> On Thursday, 1 June 2017 18:08:58 UTC+2, Peter LeFanu Lumsdain= e wrote:

>>>

>>> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 6:56 PM, Steve Awodey <awo...= @cmu.edu> wrote:

>>> >

>>> > you mean the propositional truncation or suspension o= perations might

>>> > lead to cardinals outside of a Grothendieck Universe?

>>>

>>> Exactly, yes. =C2=A0There=E2=80=99s no reason I know of to= think they *need* to, but

>>> with the construction of Mike=E2=80=99s and my paper, they= do. =C2=A0And adding stronger

>>> conditions on the cardinal used won=E2=80=99t help. =C2=A0= The problem is that one takes a

>>> fibrant replacement to go from the =E2=80=9Cpre-suspension= =E2=80=9D to the suspension (more

>>> precisely: a (TC,F) factorisation, to go from the universa= l family of

>>> pre-suspensions to the universal family of suspensions); a= nd fibrant

>>> replacement blows up the fibers to be the size of the *bas= e* of the family.

>>> So the pre-suspension is small, but the suspension =E2=80= =94 although essentially

>>> small =E2=80=94 ends up as large as the universe one=E2=80= =99s using.

>>>

>>> So here=E2=80=99s a very precise problem which is as far a= s I know open:

>>>

>>> (*) Construct an operation =CE=A3 : U =E2=80=93> U, whe= re U is Voevodsky=E2=80=99s universe,

>>> together with appropriate maps N, S : =C3=9B =E2=80=93>= =C3=9B over =CE=A3, and a homotopy m from N

>>> to S over =CE=A3, which together exhibit U as =E2=80=9Cclo= sed under suspension=E2=80=9D.

>>>

>>> I asked a related question on mathoverflow a couple of yea= rs ago:

>>> https://mathoverflow.net/questions/219588/pullback- stable-model-= of-fibrewise- suspension-of-fibrations-in- simplicial-sets

>>> David White suggested he could see an answer to that quest= ion (which would

>>> probably also answer (*) here) based on the comments by Ka= rol Szumi=C5=82o and

>>> Tyler Lawson, using the adjunction with Top, but I wasn=E2= =80=99t quite able to

>>> piece it together.

>>>

>>> =E2=80=93p.

>>>

>>> >

>>> > > On Jun 1, 2017, at 11:38 AM, Michael Shulman <= ;shu...@sandiego.edu>

>>> > > wrote:

>>> > >

>>> > > Do we actually know that the Kan simplicial set = model has a *universe

>>> > > closed under* even simple HITs? =C2=A0It's n= ot trivial because this would

>>> > > mean we could (say) propositionally truncate or = suspend the generic

>>> > > small Kan fibration and get another *small* Kan = fibration, whereas

>>> > > the

>>> > > base of these fibrations is not small, and fibra= nt replacement

>>> > > doesn't

>>> > > in general preserve smallness of fibrations with= large base spaces.

>>> > >

>>> > > (Also, the current L-S paper doesn't quite g= ive a general syntactic

>>> > > scheme, only a general semantic framework with s= uggestive

>>> > > implications

>>> > > for the corresponding syntax.)

>>> > >

>>> > >

>>> > >

>>> > > On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 8:30 AM, Steve Awodey <= ;awo...@cmu.edu> wrote:

>>> > >>

>>> > >> On Jun 1, 2017, at 10:23 AM, Thierry Coquand= <Thier...@cse.gu.se>

>>> > >> wrote:

>>> > >>

>>> > >> =C2=A0If we are only interested in providing= one -particular- model of

>>> > >> HITs,

>>> > >> the paper

>>> > >> on =C2=A0cubical type =C2=A0theory describes= a way to =C2=A0interpret HIT together

>>> > >> with a

>>> > >> univalent

>>> > >> universe which is stable by HIT operations. = This gives in particular

>>> > >> the

>>> > >> consistency

>>> > >> and the proof theoretic power of this extens= ion of type theory.

>>> > >>

>>> > >>

>>> > >> but the Kan simplicial set model already doe= s this =E2=80=94 right?

>>> > >> don=E2=80=99t get me wrong =E2=80=94 I love = the cubes, and they have lots of nice

>>> > >> properties

>>> > >> for models of HoTT

>>> > >> =E2=80=94 but there was never really a quest= ion of the consistency or

>>> > >> coherence of

>>> > >> simple HITs like propositional truncation or= suspension.

>>> > >>

>>> > >> the advance in the L-S paper is to give a ge= neral scheme for

>>> > >> defining HITs

>>> > >> syntactically

>>> > >> (a definition, if you like, of what a HIT is= , rather than a family

>>> > >> of

>>> > >> examples),

>>> > >> and then a general description of the semant= ics of these,

>>> > >> in a range of models of the basic theory.

>>> > >>

>>> > >> Steve

>>> > >>

>>> > >>

>>> > >> =C2=A0The approach uses an operation of =C2= =A0=E2=80=9Cflattening an open box=E2=80=9D, which

>>> > >> solves

>>> > >> in

>>> > >> this case the issue of interpreting HIT with= parameters (such as

>>> > >> propositional

>>> > >> truncation or suspension) without any cohere= nce issue.

>>> > >> Since the syntax used in this paper is so cl= ose to the semantics,

>>> > >> we

>>> > >> limited

>>> > >> ourselves =C2=A0to a syntactical presentatio= n of this interpretation. But

>>> > >> it can

>>> > >> directly

>>> > >> be transformed to a semantical interpretatio= n, as explained in the

>>> > >> following

>>> > >> note

>>> > >> (which also incorporates a nice simplificati= on of the operation of

>>> > >> flattering

>>> > >> an open box noticed by my coauthors). I also= try to make more

>>> > >> explicit in

>>> > >> the note

>>> > >> what is the problem solved by the =E2=80=9Cf= lattening boxes=E2=80=9D method.

>>> > >>

>>> > >> Only the cases of the spheres and propositio= nal truncation are

>>> > >> described,

>>> > >> but one

>>> > >> would expect the method to generalise to oth= er HITs covered e.g. in

>>> > >> the HoTT

>>> > >> book.

>>> > >>

>>> > >> On 25 May 2017, at 20:25, Michael Shulman &l= t;shu...@sandiego.edu>

>>> > >> wrote:

>>> > >>

>>> > >> The following long-awaited paper is now avai= lable:

>>> > >>

>>> > >> Semantics of higher inductive types

>>> > >> Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine, Mike Shulman

>>> > >> https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.<= wbr>07088

>>> > >>

>>> > >> From the abstract:

>>> > >>

>>> > >> We introduce the notion of *cell monad with = parameters*: a

>>> > >> semantically-defined scheme for specifying h= omotopically

>>> > >> well-behaved

>>> > >> notions of structure. We then show that any = suitable model category

>>> > >> has *weakly stable typal initial algebras* f= or any cell monad with

>>> > >> parameters. When combined with the local uni= verses construction to

>>> > >> obtain strict stability, this specializes to= give models of specific

>>> > >> higher inductive types, including spheres, t= he torus, pushout types,

>>> > >> truncations, the James construction, and gen= eral localisations.

>>> > >>

>>> > >> Our results apply in any sufficiently nice Q= uillen model category,

>>> > >> including any right proper simplicial Cisins= ki model category (such

>>> > >> as

>>> > >> simplicial sets) and any locally presentable= locally cartesian

>>> > >> closed

>>> > >> category (such as sets) with its trivial mod= el structure. In

>>> > >> particular, any locally presentable locally = cartesian closed

>>> > >> (=E2=88=9E,1)-category is presented by some = model category to which our

>>> > >> results apply.

>>> > >>

>>> > >> --

>>> > >> You received this message because you are su= bscribed to the Google

>>> > >> Groups

>>> > >> "Homotopy Type Theory" group.

>>> > >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop rece= iving emails from it,

>>> > >> send an

>>> > >> email to HomotopyTypeTheory+unsub...@google= groups.com .

>>> > >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout .

>>> > >>

>>> > >>

>>> > >>

>>> > >> --

>>> > >> You received this message because you are su= bscribed to the Google

>>> > >> Groups

>>> > >> "Homotopy Type Theory" group.

>>> > >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop rece= iving emails from it,

>>> > >> send an

>>> > >> email to HomotopyTypeTheory+unsub...@google= groups.com .

>>> > >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout .

>>> > >>

>>> > >>

>>> > >> --

>>> > >> You received this message because you are su= bscribed to the Google

>>> > >> Groups

>>> > >> "Homotopy Type Theory" group.

>>> > >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop rece= iving emails from it,

>>> > >> send an

>>> > >> email to HomotopyTypeTheory+unsub...@google= groups.com .

>>> > >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout .

>>> > >

>>> > > --

>>> > > You received this message because you are subscr= ibed to the Google

>>> > > Groups "Homotopy Type Theory" group.

>>> > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receivin= g emails from it,

>>> > > send an email to HomotopyTypeTheory+unsub...@go= oglegroups.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 ema= ils from it, send

>>> > an email to HomotopyTypeTheory+unsub...@googlegroups.= com .

>>> > For more options, visit http= s://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+unsub...@googlegroups.com .

> For more options, visit https://groups.go= ogle.com/d/optout .