For generalities on the translation Ho CT-Ho TT see dictionary HoCT-HoTT.
For generalities on the formulation of Ho TT in Coq see HoTT-Coq - references.
For generalities on cohesive toposes see Urs Schreiber, differential cohomology in a cohesive topos
For a blog comment on the internal formulation of cohesion, see Mike Shulman
internalizing the external - the joy of codiscreteness, ncafé
discreteness, concreteness, fibrations, and scones, ncafé
We assume that
is an adjoint quadruple, where we assume that preserves finite products and and are full and faithful.
This adjoint quadruple gives rise to an adjoint triple
For a sub-(∞,1)-category, the inclusion extends to an adjoint quadruple of the form
precisely if there exists for each object
a morphism with ;
a morphism with ;
a morphism with
such that for all and the induced morphisms
;
;
;
;
are equivalences (the first three of ∞-groupoids the last two in ).
Moreover, if is a cartesian closed category, then preserves finite products precisely if the -inclusion is an exponential ideal.
The last statement follows from the -category analog of the discussion here.
This section is on the Coq formalization of axiomatic homotopy cohesion. It draws from Mike Shulman, Internalizing the external, or The Joys of Codiscreteness (blog post). The corresponding Coq-code library is at Mike Shulman, HoTT/Coq/Subcatgeories
Assuming that the internal language of a topos is homotopy type theory the goal is to write some coq code which type-checks iff is cohesive.
One can write down easily some coq code which is satisfied for all types in iff is cohesive (this is done below).
However homotopy type theory is a dependent type theory? and hence contains also dependent types. So it is a different and more interesting game to strictify rules and try to write some coq code which is satisfied for all dependent types in iff is cohesive. (In particular if one has solved the stricter problem by identifying a type with the dependent type one obtains also a solution to the easier one.)
The approach taken below departs from the notion of reflective subfibration.
A reflective subfibration is defined to be a reflective subcategory of each slice category, such that pullback preserves the subcategories and commutes with the reflector.
This section comments on the code ReflectiveSubfibration.v.
It codes the Ho CT axiom that
exhibits the codiscrete objects as reflective subcategory of .
A reflective subfibration is defined to be a reflective subcategory of each slice category, such that pullback preserves the subcategories and commutes with the reflector.
The following typeclass rsf
axiomatizes the notion of reflective subfibration in coq:
Class rsf (in_rsc : Type -> Type) := {
in_rsc_prop : forall X, is_prop (in_rsc X)
; reflect : Type -> Type
; reflect_in_rsc : forall X, in_rsc (reflect X)
; to_reflect : forall X, X -> reflect X
; reflect_is_reflection : forall X Y, in_rsc Y ->
is_equiv (fun f: reflect X -> Y => f o to_reflect X)
}.
The following axioms characterize in type theoretical language the relations between objects of a reflective subcategory by means of the endofunctor
This says that for any type , we have a proposition (expressing the assertion that is in our putative reflective subcategory).
This says that for any , we have another type (its reflection into the subcategory).
This says that for any , the type is in the subcategory.
. This says that for any , we have a map (which we can think of as the unit of the adjunction).
. This says that for any types A and B, where B is in the subcategory, precomposing with yields an equivalence between and (which we can think of as the adjunction isomorphism since precomposition with the adjunction-unit assigns the adjunct).
The previous axioms are given for plain types but one can impose them also on dependent types in that we require
In category theory this means that
is a pullback and the right arrow is a fibration. The operation commutes with pullbacks and gives an operation on every overcategory . There are axioms expressing the requirement that is a reflection.
(1) The following statements are equivalent:
is a reflective factorization system in .
There is a reflective subcategory with reflector , is the class of morphisms whose -image is invertible in , and .
is a factorization system and satisfies 2-out -of-3.
is a factorization system and is the class of fibrant morphisms which as dependent types satisfy .
For every -morphism satisfying: and are contractible, also for all we have is contractible.
(2) The following statements are equivalent:
is a factorization system in .
The class is pullback-stable where means that each reflection is defined by -factorization.
is a pullback-stable system of reflective subcategories of slices of , and for every the class of objects of is closed under composition.
The class of types satisfying is closed under dependent sums.
(3) The following statements are equivalent:
is a pullback-stable system of reflective subcategories of slices of , for every the class of objects of is closed under composition, and all reflectors commute with pullbacks.
The (by (2)) to corresponding factorization system is pullback stable.
Let be a ccc. Let be a reflective subcategory.
Then is an exponential ideal iff the reflector preserves finite products.
being local means that we have a geometric morphism with extra right adjoint
(Discrete objects are reflectively- and coreflectively embedded.)