Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add 1-Groupoid structure of equivalences #719

Merged
merged 2 commits into from Feb 18, 2015

Conversation

JasonGross
Copy link
Contributor

Should we consider replacing [IsEquiv] with a definition that has more
judgmental properties, and doesn't require [Funext] for proving all of
the groupoid structure? (Is there such a definition?)

Should we consider replacing [IsEquiv] with a definition that has more
judgmental properties, and doesn't require [Funext] for proving all of
the groupoid structure?  (Is there such a definition?)

This closes HoTT#703.
@spitters
Copy link
Member

It would be nice to package this up in a tactic/ rewrite database.

Nit: Without univalence this is only a pregroupoid, isn't it.

@mikeshulman
Copy link
Contributor

Nice! LGTM.

Is there such a definition?

I am very doubtful.

@JasonGross
Copy link
Contributor Author

I am very doubtful.

I asked a question on the mailing list a while back about making more properties judgmental, and @peterlefanulumsdaine replied with a way to get judgmental involutivity of symmetry. That the inverse of the identity is the identity should also hold strictly for this definition. Looking more at it, if we add a weak-eta rule for inductive types to Coq, then the left and right units for paths are strict, and the left and right units for this definition of equivalence also become strict. It's not clear to me if/how we can strictify associativity for paths, but if we manage that, then it also becomes strict for this definition of equivalences. I don't think there's any hope for the left and right inverse laws, but this would still be much more than we have now. Should we consider switching? (Separate issue?)

@JasonGross
Copy link
Contributor Author

Nit: Without univalence this is only a pregroupoid, isn't it.

Yes. Should I rename the file?

@JasonGross
Copy link
Contributor Author

It would be nice to package this up in a tactic/ rewrite database.

I will add a comment about pulling the relevant code from PathGroupoids. I don't want to write the tactic without using it anywhere, because then it is likely to break.

@JasonGross
Copy link
Contributor Author

It would be nice to package this up in a tactic/ rewrite database.

Comment added

Nit: Without univalence this is only a pregroupoid, isn't it.

I've changed the title of the file, but will only change the filename if asked.

@mikeshulman
Copy link
Contributor

I don't think it's worth renaming the file. In fact it's not even technically a pregroupoid but a pre-oo-groupoid...

@mikeshulman
Copy link
Contributor

Peter's definition goes up a universe level, so I don't think we should use it.

@JasonGross
Copy link
Contributor Author

APOE?

spitters added a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 18, 2015
Add 1-Groupoid structure of equivalences
@spitters spitters merged commit dbf560f into HoTT:master Feb 18, 2015
@JasonGross JasonGross deleted the equiv-groupoids branch February 18, 2015 21:02
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants