Skip to main content
8 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Jul 12, 2013 at 14:58 comment added Andrej Bauer I defer to the expert.
Jul 11, 2013 at 22:21 comment added Mike Shulman @FrançoisG.Dorais, I would say that yes, absolutely, all $(\infty,1)$-toposes are univalent. The problem is to find definitions of "$(\infty,1)$-topos" and "univalent" which make this true, but this is only a technical problem --- intuitively, we have a pretty good idea of what both mean. It's true that at present we don't know how to model the usual strict form of univalence in all Grothendieck $(\infty,1)$-toposes (which are the only ones that have a precise definition at the moment), but there are weaker forms of univalence that do hold.
Jul 11, 2013 at 22:18 comment added Mike Shulman This is a much fairer and more even-handed answer than I would have been able to give. (-: Personally, despite those long and thought-provoking discussions at IAS, I am still surprised that in the 21st century anyone uses the phrase "intended model" any more. Are the integers the "intended abelian group"?
Jul 11, 2013 at 16:38 comment added Andrej Bauer No, no, it seems that one has to work to get univalence. At present we lack techniques to fabricate univalent models of various kinds. But if we discount univalence, there is still the question on how type theory and higher toposes fit together.
Jul 11, 2013 at 13:22 comment added François G. Dorais Thanks, Andrej! This confirms some of my initial impressions. Regarding the categorical logic perspective, despite the fact that this hasn't been fully worked out, is there a clear feeling what the intended class of models is from that point of view? Are all $(\infty,1)$-toposes univalent?
Jul 11, 2013 at 12:25 comment added Urs Schreiber An intended model for HoTT seems like a rather sad idea. It's like the Vikings discovering America but then rather intending to go back home after all.
Jul 11, 2013 at 8:33 history edited Andrej Bauer CC BY-SA 3.0
deleted 3 characters in body
Jul 11, 2013 at 7:54 history answered Andrej Bauer CC BY-SA 3.0