by jessup on 3/1/18, 9:19 PM with 15 comments
by mbid on 3/2/18, 3:07 AM
Thus, the term asserting the univalence axiom corresponds to a certain morphism in an elementary topos with object classifiers. The point is, I guess, that such a morphism exists only in the degenerate topos, i.e. the one equivalent to the single object-single morphism category. Only in higher toposes/categories can non-degenerate examples of the univalence axiom be found.
It should also be noted that you can already identify isomorphic objects ("types") of 1-categories without much harm. Formally, if you have a contractible groupoid G contained in a category C, then the quotient map C -> C/G that collapses all objects of G onto a single object and all morphisms in G onto the identity at that object is an equivalence of categories. This works in particular if G is given by an isomorphism of distinct objects.
It still boggles my mind why type theorists think that "function extensionality" and quotients, two entirely 1-categorical concepts, are best treated using homotopy coherent diagrams. And it is unclear since when proving theorems in less generality (because additional axioms are assumed) is considered progress.
by Jeff_Brown on 3/2/18, 4:42 PM