physics, mathematical physics, philosophy of physics
theory (physics), model (physics)
experiment, measurement, computable physics
Axiomatizations
Tools
Structural phenomena
Types of quantum field thories
synthetic differential geometry
Introductions
from point-set topology to differentiable manifolds
geometry of physics: coordinate systems, smooth spaces, manifolds, smooth homotopy types, supergeometry
Differentials
Tangency
The magic algebraic facts
Theorems
Axiomatics
(shape modality $\dashv$ flat modality $\dashv$ sharp modality)
$(ʃ \dashv \flat \dashv \sharp )$
dR-shape modality $\dashv$ dR-flat modality
$ʃ_{dR} \dashv \flat_{dR}$
(reduction modality $\dashv$ infinitesimal shape modality $\dashv$ infinitesimal flat modality)
$(\Re \dashv \Im \dashv \&)$
fermionic modality $\dashv$ bosonic modality $\dashv$ rheonomy modality
$(\rightrightarrows \dashv \rightsquigarrow \dashv Rh)$
Models
Models for Smooth Infinitesimal Analysis
smooth algebra ($C^\infty$-ring)
differential equations, variational calculus
Chern-Weil theory, ∞-Chern-Weil theory
Cartan geometry (super, higher)
This entry is one chapter of the entry geometry of physics.
Every kind of geometry is modeled on a collection of archetypical basic spaces and geometric homomorphisms between them. In differential geometry the archetypical spaces are the abstract standard Cartesian coordinate systems, denoted $\mathbb{R}^n$, in every dimension $n \in \mathbb{N}$, and the geometric homomorphism between them are smooth functions $\mathbb{R}^{n_1} \to \mathbb{R}^{n_2}$, hence smooth (and possibly degenerate) coordinate transformations.
Here we discuss the central aspects of the nature of such abstract coordinate systems in themselves. At this point these are not yet coordinate systems on some other space. That is instead the topic of the next section Smooth spaces.
In this Mod Layer we discuss the concrete particulars of coordinate systems: the continuum real line $\mathbb{R}$, the Cartesian spaces $\mathbb{R}^n$ formed from it and the smooth functions between these.
The fundamental premise of differential geometry as a model of geometry in physics is the following.
Premise. The abstract worldline of any particle is modeled by the continuum real line $\mathbb{R}$.
This comes down to the following sequence of premises.
There is a linear ordering of the points on a worldline: in particular if we pick points at some intervals on the worldline we may label these in an order-preserving way by integers
$\mathbb{Z}$.
These intervals may each be subdivided into $n$ smaller intervals, for each natural number $n$. Hence we may label points on the worldline in an order-preserving way by the rational numbers
$\mathbb{Q}$.
This labeling is dense: every point on the worldline is the supremum of an inhabited bounded subset of such labels. This means that a worldline is the real line, the continuum of real numbers
$\mathbb{R}$.
The adjective “real” in “real number” is a historical shadow of the old idea that real numbers are related to observed reality, hence to physics in this way. The experimental success of this assumption shows that it is valid at least to very good approximation.
Speculations are common that in a fully exact theory of quantum gravity, currently unavailable, this assumption needs to be refined. For instance in p-adic physics one explores the hypothesis that the relevant completion of the rational numbers as above is not the reals, but p-adic numbers $\mathbb{Q}_p$ for some prime number $p \in \mathbb{N}$. Or for example in the study of QFT on non-commutative spacetime one explore the idea that at small scales the smooth continuum is to be replaced by an object in noncommutative geometry. Combining these two ideas leads to the notion of non-commutative analytic space as a potential model for space in physics. And so forth.
For the time being all this remains speculation and differential geometry based on the continuum real line remains the context of all fundamental model building in physics related to observed phenomenology. Often it is argued that these speculations are necessitated by the very nature of quantum theory applied to gravity. But, at least so far, such statements are not actually supported by the standard theory of quantization: we discuss below in Geometric quantization how not just classical physics but also quantum theory, in the best modern version available, is entirely rooted in differential geometry based on the continuum real line.
This is the motivation for studying models of physics in geometry modeled on the continuum real line. On the other hand, in all of what follows our discussion is set up such as to be maximally independent of this specific choice (this is what topos theory accomplishes for us, discussed below Smooth spaces – Semantic Layer). If we do desire to consider another choice of archetypical spaces for the geometry of physics we can simply “change the site”, as discussed below and many of the constructions, propositions and theorems in the following will continue to hold. This is notably what we do below in Supergeometric coordinate systems when we generalize the present discussion to a flavor of differential geometry that also formalizes the notion of fermion particles: “differential supergeometry”.
A function of sets $f : \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}$ is called a smooth function if, coinductively:
the derivative $\frac{d f}{d x} : \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}$ exists;
and is itself a smooth function.
We write $C^\infty(\mathbb{R}) \in Set$ for the set of all smooth functions on $\mathbb{R}$.
The superscript “${}^\infty$” in “$C^\infty(\mathbb{R})$” refers to the order of the derivatives that exist for smooth functions. More generally for $k \in \mathbb{N}$ one writes $C^k(\mathbb{R})$ for the set of $k$-fold differentiable functions on $\mathbb{R}$. These will however not play much of a role for our discussion here.
For $n \in \mathbb{N}$, the Cartesian space $\mathbb{R}^n$ is the set
of $n$-tuples of real numbers. For $1 \leq k \leq n$ write
for the function such that $i^k(x) = (0, \cdots, 0,x,0,\cdots,0)$ is the tuple whose $k$th entry is $x$ and all whose other entries are $0 \in \mathbb{R}$; and write
for the function such that $p^k(x^1, \cdots, x^n) = x^k$.
A homomorphism of Cartesian spaces is a smooth function
hence a function $f : \mathbb{R}^{n_1} \to \mathbb{R}^{n_2}$ such that all partial derivatives exist and are continuous (…).
Regarding $\mathbb{R}^n$ as an $\mathbb{R}$-vector space, every linear function $\mathbb{R}^{n_1} \to \mathbb{R}^{n_2}$ is in particular a smooth function.
But a homomorphism of Cartesian spaces in def. 2 is not required to be a linear map. We do not regard the Cartesian spaces here as vector spaces.
A smooth function $f : \mathbb{R}^{n_1} \to \mathbb{R}^{n_2}$ is called a diffeomorphism if there exists another smooth function $\mathbb{R}^{n_2} \to \mathbb{R}^{n_1}$ such that the underlying functions of sets are inverse to each other
and
There exists a diffeomorphism $\mathbb{R}^{n_1} \to \mathbb{R}^{n_2}$ precisely if $n_1 = n_2$.
We will also say equivalently that
a Cartesian space $\mathbb{R}^n$ is an abstract coordinate system;
a smooth function $\mathbb{R}^{n_1} \to \mathbb{R}^{n_2}$ is an abstract coordinate transformation;
the function $p^k : \mathbb{R}^{n} \to \mathbb{R}$ is the $k$th coordinate of the coordinate system $\mathbb{R}^n$. We will also write this function as $x^k : \mathbb{R}^{n} \to \mathbb{R}$.
for $f : \mathbb{R}^{n_1} \to \mathbb{R}^{n_2}$ a smooth function, and $1 \leq k \leq n_2$ we write
$f^k \coloneqq p^k\circ f$
$(f^1, \cdots, f^n) \coloneqq f$.
It follows with this notation that
Hence an abstract coordinate transformation
may equivalently be written as the tuple
Abstract coordinate systems according to prop. 4 form a category – to be denoted CartSp – whose
objects are the abstract coordinate systems $\mathbb{R}^{n}$ (the class of objects is the set $\mathbb{N}$ of natural numbers $n$);
morphisms $f : \mathbb{R}^{n_1} \to \mathbb{R}^{n_2}$ are the abstract coordinate transformations = smooth functions.
Composition of morphisms is given by composition of functions.
We have that
The identity morphisms are precisely the identity functions.
The isomorphisms are precisely the diffeomorphisms.
Write CartSp${}^{op}$ for the opposite category of CartSp.
This is the category with the same objects as $CartSp$, but where a morphism $\mathbb{R}^{n_1} \to \mathbb{R}^{n_2}$ in $CartSp^{op}$ is given by a morphism $\mathbb{R}^{n_1} \leftarrow \mathbb{R}^{n_2}$ in $CartSp$.
We will be discussing below the idea of exploring smooth spaces by laying out abstract coordinate systems in them in all possible ways. The reader should begin to think of the sets that appear in the following definition as the set of ways of laying out a given abstract coordinate systems in a given space. This is discussed in more detail below in Smooth spaces.
A functor $X : CartSp^{op} \to Set$ (a “presheaf”) is
for each abstract coordinate system $U$ a set $X(U)$
for each coordinate transformation $f : \mathbb{R}^{n_1} \to \mathbb{R}^{n_2}$ a function $X(f) : X(\mathbb{R}^{n_1}) \to X(\mathbb{R}^{n_2})$
such that
identity is respected $X(id_{\mathbb{R}^n}) = id_{X(\mathbb{R}^n)}$;
composition is respected $X(f_2)\circ X(f_1) = X(f_2 \circ f_1)$
The special properties smooth functions that make them play an important role different from other classes of functions are the following.
existence of bump functions and partitions of unity
the Hadamard lemma and Borel's theorem
Or maybe better put: what makes smooth functions special is that the first of these properties holds, while the second is still retained.
(…)
This ends the “Model layer”-part of the discussion of coordinate systems. In the Semantics layer below we continue with a more sophisticated perspective on this topic. The reader wishing to stick to more elementary discussion for the moment should skip ahead to the next “Model layer”-discussion of Smooth spaces below.
In this Sem Layer we discuss the concrete general aspects of abstract coordinate systems, def. 4: the fact that they naturally form:
an algebraic theory,
a site.
Hence CartSp is (the syntactic category) of an algebraic theory (a Lawvere theory).
This is called the theory of smooth algebras.
is a smooth algebra. A homomorphism of smooth algebras is a natural transformation between the corresponding functors.
The basic example is:
For $n \in \mathbb{N}$, the smooth algebra $C^\infty(\mathbb{R}^n)$ is the functor $CartSp \to Set$ which is functor corepresented by $\mathbb{R}^n \in$ CartSp. This means that to $\mathbb{R}^k \in CartSp$ it assigns the set
of smooth functions from $\mathbb{R}^n$ to $\mathbb{R}^k$, and to a smooth function $f \colon \mathbb{R}^{k_1} \to \mathbb{R}^{k_2}$ it assigns the function
given by postcomposition with $f$.
Example 2 shows how we are to think of a functor $A \colon CartSp \to Set$ as encoding an algebra: such a functor assigns to $\mathbb{R}^n$ a set to be interpreted as a set of “smooth functions on something with values in $\mathbb{R}^n$”, only that the “something” here is not pre-defined, but is instead indirectly characterized by this assignment.
Due to this we will often denote smooth algebras as “$C^\infty(X)$”, even if “$X$” is not a pre-defined object, and write their value on $\mathbb{R}^n$ as $C^\infty(X,\mathbb{R}^n)$.
This is illustrated by the next example.
The smooth algebra of dual numbers $C^\infty(\mathbf{D})$ is the smooth algebra which assigns to $\mathbb{R}^n$ the Cartesian product
of two copies of $\mathbb{R}^n$, which we will write as
Moreover, a smooth function $f \colon \mathbb{R}^{n_1} \to \mathbb{R}^{n_2}$ is sent to the function
given by
As the notation suggests, we may think of $C^\infty(D)$ as the functions on a first order infinitesimal neighbourhood of the origin in $\mathbb{R}^n$.
We discuss a standard structure of a site on the category CartSp. Following Johnstone -- Sketches of an Elephant, it will be useful and convenient to regard a site as a (small) category equipped with a coverage. This generates a genuine Grothendieck topology, but need not itself already be one.
For $n \in \mathbb{N}$ the standard open n-ball is the subset
A differentially good open cover of a Cartesian space $\mathbb{R}^n$ is a set $\{U_i \hookrightarrow \mathbb{R}^n\}$ of open subset inclusions of Cartesian spaces such that these cover $\mathbb{R}^n$ and such for each non-empty finite intersection there exists a diffeomorphism
that identifies the $k$-fold intersection with a Cartesian space itself.
Differentiably good covers are useful for computations. Their full impact is however on the homotopy theory of simplicial presheaves over CartSp. This we discuss further below, around prop. \ref{DifferentiablyGoodCoverGivesSPlitHyperCoverOverCartSp}.
Every open cover refines to a differentially good open cover, def. 9.
A proof is at good open cover.
Despite its appearance, this is not quite a classical statement. The classical statement is only that every open cover is refined by a topologically good open cover. See the comments here in the references-section at open ball for the situation concerning this statement in the literature.
The good open covers do not yet form a Grothendieck topology on CartSp. One of the axioms of a Grothendieck topology is that for every covering family also its pullback along any morphism in the category is a covering family. But while the pullback of every open cover is again an open cover, and hence open covers form a Grothendieck topology on CartSp, not every pullback of a good open cover is again good.
Let $\{\mathbb{R}^2\stackrel{\phi_{i}}{\hookrightarrow}\mathbb{R}^2\}_{i \in \{1,2\}}$ be the open cover of the plane by an open left half space
and a right open half space
The intersection of the two is the open strip
So this is a good open cover of $\mathbb{R}^2$.
But consider then the smooth function
which sends the line to a curve in the plane that periodically goes around the circle of radius 2 in the plane.
Then the pullback of the above good open cover on $\mathbb{R}^2$ to $\mathbb{R}^1$ along this function is an open cover of $\mathbb{R}$ by two open subsets, each being a disjoint union of countably many open intervals in $\mathbb{R}$. Each of these open intervals is an open 1-ball hence diffeomorphic to $\mathbb{R}^1$, but their disjoint union is not contractible (it does not contract to the point, but to many points!).
So the pullback of the good open cover that we started with is an open cover which is not good anymore. But it has an evident refinement by a good open cover.
This is a special case of what the following statement says in generality.
By definition of coverage we need to check that for $\{U_i \hookrightarrow \mathbb{R}^n\}_{i \in I}$ any good open cover and $f \colon \mathbb{R}^k \to \mathbb{R}^n$ any smooth function, we can find a good open cover $\{K_j \to \mathbb{R}^k\}_{j \in J}$ and a function $J \to I$ such that for each $j \in J$ there is a smooth function $\phi \colon K_j \to U_{\rho(j)}$ that makes this diagram commute:
To obtain this, let $\{f^* U_i \to \mathbb{R}^k\}$ be the pullback of the original covering family, in that
This is evidently an open cover, albeit not necessarily a good open cover. But by prop. 5 there does exist a good open cover $\{\tilde K_{\tilde j} \hookrightarrow \mathbb{R}^k\}_{\tilde j \in \tilde J}$ refining it, which in turn means that for all $\tilde j$ there is
Therefore then the pasting composite of these commuting squares
solves the condition required in the definition of coverage.
By example 4 this good open cover coverage is not a Grothendieck topology. But as any coverage, it uniquely completes to one which has the same sheaves.
The Grothendieck topology induced on CartSp by the differentially good open cover coverage of def. 6 has as covering families the ordinary open covers.
This means that for every sheaf-theoretic construction to follow we can just as well consider the Grothendieck topology of open covers on $CartSp$. The sheaves of the open cover topology are the same as those of the good open cover coverage. But the latter is (more) useful for several computational purposes in the following. It is the good open cover coverage that makes manifest, below, that sheaves on $CartSp$ form a locally connected topos and in consequence then a cohesive topos. This kind of argument becomes all the more pronounced as we pass further below to (∞,1)-sheaves on CartSp. This will be discussed in Smooth n-groupoids – Semantic Layer – Local Infinity-Connectedness below.
(…)
slice category $CartSp_{\mathbb{R}^n}$
(…)
In this Syn Layer we discuss the abstract generals of abstract coordinate systems, def. 4: the internal language of a category with products, which is type theory with product types.
We now introduce a different notation for objects and morphisms in a category (such as the category CartSp of def. 2). This notation is designed to, eventually, make more transparent what exactly it is that happens when we reason deductively about objects and morphisms of a category.
But before we begin to make any actual deductions about objects and morphisms in a category below, in this section here we express the given objects and morphisms at hand in the first place. Such basic statements of the form “There is an object called $A$” are to be called judgments, in order not to confuse these with genuine propositions that we eventually formalize within this metalanguage.
To express that there is an object
in a category $\mathcal{C}$, we write now equivalently the string of symbols (called a sequent)
We say that these symbols express the judgment that $X$ is a type. We also say that $\vdash \; X \colon Type$ is the syntax of which $X \in \mathcal{C}$ is the categorical semantics.
For instance the terminal object $* \in \mathcal{C}$ we call the categorical semantics of the unit type and write syntactically as
If we want to express that we do assume that a terminal object indeed exists, hence that we want to be able to deduce the existence of a terminal object from no hypothesis, then we write this judgment below a horizontal line
We will see more interesting such horizontal-line statements below.
Next, to express an element of the object $X$ in $\mathcal{C}$, hence a morphism
in $\mathcal{C}$ we write equivalently the sequent
and call this the judgment that $x$ is a term of type $X$.
Notice that every object $X \in \mathcal{C}$ becomes the terminal object in the slice category $\mathcal{C}_{/X}$. Let $A \to X$ be any morphism in $\mathcal{C}$, regarded as an object in the slice category
We declare that the syntax of which this is the categorical semantics is given by the sequent
We say that this expresses the judgement that $A$ is an $X$-dependent type; or a type in the context of a free variable $x$ of type $X$.
Notice that an element of $A \in \mathcal{C}_{/X}$ is a generalized element of $A$ in $\mathcal{C}$, namely a morphism $X \to A$ which fits into a commuting diagram
in $\mathcal{C}$.
We declare that the syntax of which such
is this the categorical semantics is the sequent
We say that this expresses the judgment that $a(x)$ is a term depending on the free variable $x$ of type $X$.
This completes the list of judgment syntax to be considered. Notice that if the category $\mathcal{C}$ has products then, even though it does not explicitly appear above, this is sufficient to express any morphism $X \stackrel{f}{\to} Y$ in $\mathcal{C}$ as the semantics of a term: we regard this morphism naturally as being the corresponding morphism in the slice category $\mathcal{C}_{/X}$ which as a commuting diagram in $\mathcal{C}$ itself is
This is the categorical semantics for which the syntax is simply
being the judgment which expresses that $y(x)$ is a term in context of an $X$-dependent type $Y$ in the special degenerate case that $Y$ does not actually vary with $x \colon X$.
With the above symbolic notation for making judgments about the presence of objects and morphisms in a category $\mathcal{C}$, we now consider a system of rule of deduction that tells us how we may process these symbols (how to do computations) such that the new symbols we obtain in turn express new objects and new morphisms in $\mathcal{C}$ that we can build out of the given ones by universal constructions in the sense of category theory.
This way of deducing new expressions from given ones is very basic as well as very natural and hence goes by the technical term natural deduction. For every kind of type (every universal construction in category theory) there is, in natural deduction, one set of rules for how to deductively reason about it. This set of rules, in turn, always consists of four kinds of rules, called the
These are going to be the syntax in type theory of which universal constructions in category theory is the categorical semantics.
In our running example where $\mathcal{C} =$ CartSp, the only universal construction available is that of forming products. We therefore introduce now the natural deduction rules by way of example of the special case of product types.
1. type formation rule Let
be two objects in a category with products. Then there exists the product object
We now declare that the syntax of which this state of affairs is the categorical semantics is the collection of symbols of the form
Here on top of the horizontal line we have the two judgments which express that, syntactically, $A$ is a type and $B$ is a type, and semantically that $A \in \mathcal{C}$ and $B \in \mathcal{C}$. Below the horizontal line is, in turn, the judgment which expresses that there is, syntactically, a product type, which semantically is the product $A \times B \in \mathcal{C}$. The horizontal line itself is to indicate that if we are given the (symbols of) the collection of judgments on top, then we are entitled to also obtain the judgment on the bottom.
Remark (Computation) All this may seem, on first sight, like being a lot of fuss about something of grandiose banality. To see what is gradually being accomplished here despite of this appearance, as we proceed in this discussion, the reader can and should think of this as the first steps in the definition of a programming language: the notion of judgment is a syntactic rule for strings of symbols that a computer is to read in, and a natural deduction-step as the type formation rule above is an operation that this computer validates as being an allowed step of transforming a memory state with a given collection of such strings into a new memory state to which the string below the horizontal line is added. As we add the remaining rules below, what looks like a grandiose banality so far will remain grandiose, but no longer be a banality. The reader feeling in need of more motivational remarks along these lines might want to take a break here and have a look at the entry computational trinitarianism first, that provides more pointers to the grandiose picture which we are approaching here.
Next, the second natural deduction rule for product types is the
2. term elimination rule. The fact that $A \times B \in \mathcal{C}$ is equipped with two projection morphisms
means that from every element $t$ of $A \times B$ we may deduce the existence of elements $p_1(t)$ and $p_2(t)$ of $A$ and $B$, respectively. We declare now that this is the categorical semantics of which the natural deduction syntax is:
As before, this is to say that if syntactically we are given strings of symbols expressing judgments as on the top of these horizontal lines, then we may “naturally deduce” also the judgment of the string of symbols on the bottom of this line.
3. term introduction rule. The first part of the universal property of the product in category theory is that for $Q \in \mathcal{C}$ any other object equipped with morphisms
in $\mathcal{C}$, we obtain a canonical morphism
in $\mathcal{C}$. This is now declared to be the categorical semantics of which the natural deduction syntax is
With the elements that are the semantics of the terms appearing here made explicit, this is the syntax for a diagram
4. computation rule. The next part of the universal property of the product in category theory is that the resulting diagram
is in fact a commuting diagram. Syntactically this is, clearly, the rule that the following identifications of strings of symbols are to be enforced
This concluces the description of the natural deduction about objects, morphisms and products in a category using its type theory syntax. We summarize the dictionary between category theory and type theory discussed so far below.
In the next section we promote our running example category $\mathcal{C}$, which admits only very few universal constructions (just products), to a richer category, the sheaf topos over it. That richer category then accordingly comes with a richer syntax of natural deduction inside it, namely with full dependent type theory. This we discuss in the Syn Layer below.
(…) dependent sum type (…)
The dictionary between dependent type theory with product types and category theory of categories with products.
type theory | category theory |
---|---|
syntax | semantics |
judgment | diagram |
type | object in category |
$\vdash\; A \colon Type$ | $A \in \mathcal{C}$ |
term | element |
$\vdash\; a \colon A$ | $* \stackrel{a}{\to} A$ |
dependent type | object in slice category |
$x \colon X \;\vdash\; A(x) \colon Type$ | $\array{A \\ \downarrow \\ X} \in \mathcal{C}_{/X}$ |
term in context | generalized elements/element in slice category |
$x \colon X \;\vdash \; a(x)\colon A(x)$ | $\array{X &&\stackrel{a}{\to}&& A \\ & {}_{\mathllap{id_X}}\searrow && \swarrow_{\mathrlap{}} \\ && X}$ |
$x \colon X \;\vdash \; a(x)\colon A$ | $\array{X &&\stackrel{(id_X,a)}{\to}&& X \times A \\ & {}_{\mathllap{id_X}}\searrow && \swarrow_{\mathrlap{p_1}} \\ && X}$ |
$\,$
type theory | category theory | |
---|---|---|
syntax | semantics | |
natural deduction | universal construction | |
substitution……………………. | pullback | |
$\frac{ x_2 \colon X_2\; \vdash\; A(x_2) \colon Type \;\;\;\; x_1 \colon X_1\; \vdash \; f(x_1)\colon X_2}{ x_1 \colon X_1 \;\vdash A(f(x_1)) \colon Type}$ | $\,$ $\array{ f^* A &\to& A \\ \downarrow && \downarrow \\ X_1 &\stackrel{f}{\to}& X_2 }$ |
$\,$
type theory | category theory | |
---|---|---|
syntax | semantics | |
natural deduction | universal construction | |
product type | product | |
type formation | $\frac{\vdash \;A \colon Type \;\;\;\;\; \vdash \;B \colon Type}{\vdash A \times B \colon Type}$ | $A,B \in \mathcal{C} \Rightarrow A \times B \in \mathcal{C}$ |
term introduction | $\frac{\vdash\; a \colon A\;\;\;\;\; \vdash\; b \colon B}{ \vdash \; (a,b) \colon A \times B}$ | $\array{ && Q\\ & {}^{\mathllap{a}}\swarrow &\downarrow_{\mathrlap{(a,b)}}& \searrow^{\mathrlap{b}}\\ A &&A \times B&& B }$ |
term elimination | $\frac{\vdash\; t \colon A \times B}{\vdash\; p_1(t) \colon A} \;\;\;\;\;\frac{\vdash\; t \colon A \times B}{\vdash\; p_2(t) \colon B}$ | $\array{ && Q\\ &&\downarrow^{t} && \\ A &\stackrel{p_1}{\leftarrow}& A \times B &\stackrel{p_2}{\to}& B}$ |
computation rule | $p_1(a,b) = a\;\;\; p_2(a,b) = b$ | $\array{ && Q \\ & {}^{\mathllap{a}}\swarrow &\downarrow_{(a,b)}& \searrow^{\mathrlap{b}} \\ A &\stackrel{p_1}{\leftarrow}& A \times B& \stackrel{p_2}{\to} & B}$ |
$\,$
type theory | category theory | |
---|---|---|
syntax | semantics | |
natural deduction | universal construction | |
dependent sum type | dependent sum | |
type formation | $\frac{\vdash\: X \colon Type \;\;\;\;\; x \colon X \;\vdash\; A(x)\colon Type}{\vdash \; \left(\sum_{x \colon X} A\left(x\right)\right) \colon Type}$ | $\left( \array{ A \\ \downarrow^{\mathrlap{p_1}} \\ X} \; \in \mathcal{C}\right) \Rightarrow \left( A \in \mathcal{C}\right)$ |
term introduction | $\frac{x \colon X \;\vdash\; a \colon A(x)}{\vdash (x,a) \colon \sum_{x' \colon X} A\left(x'\right) }$ | $\array{ Q &\stackrel{a}{\to}& A \\ & {}_{\mathllap{x}}\searrow & \\ && X }$ |
term elimination | $\frac{\vdash\; t \colon \left(\sum_{x \colon X} A\left(x\right)\right)}{\vdash\; p_1(t) \colon X\;\;\;\;\; \vdash\; p_2(t) \colon A(p_1(t))}$ | $\array{ Q &\stackrel{(x,a)}{\to}& A \\ & & \downarrow^{\mathrlap{p_1}} \\ && X }$ |
computation rule | $p_1(x,a) = x\;\;\;\; p_2(x,a) = a$ | $\array{ Q &\stackrel{(x,a)}{\to}& A \\ & {}_{\mathllap{x}}\searrow & \downarrow^{\mathrlap{p_1}} \\ && X }$ |
Below in Smooth spaces - Syntactic Layer we complete this dictionary to one between dependent type theory with dependent products and toposes.