Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
139 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
46 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

On Small Types in Univalent Foundations (2111.00482v5)

Published 31 Oct 2021 in cs.LO and math.LO

Abstract: We investigate predicative aspects of constructive univalent foundations. By predicative and constructive, we respectively mean that we do not assume Voevodsky's propositional resizing axioms or excluded middle. Our work complements existing work on predicative mathematics by exploring what cannot be done predicatively in univalent foundations. Our first main result is that nontrivial (directed or bounded) complete posets are necessarily large. That is, if such a nontrivial poset is small, then weak propositional resizing holds. It is possible to derive full propositional resizing if we strengthen nontriviality to positivity. The distinction between nontriviality and positivity is analogous to the distinction between nonemptiness and inhabitedness. Moreover, we prove that locally small, nontrivial (directed or bounded) complete posets necessarily lack decidable equality. We prove our results for a general class of posets, which includes e.g. directed complete posets, bounded complete posets, sup-lattices and frames. Secondly, the fact that these nontrivial posets are necessarily large has the important consequence that Tarski's theorem (and similar results) cannot be applied in nontrivial instances. Furthermore, we explain that generalizations of Tarski's theorem that allow for large structures are provably false by showing that the ordinal of ordinals in a univalent universe has small suprema in the presence of set quotients. The latter also leads us to investigate the inter-definability and interaction of type universes of propositional truncations and set quotients, as well as a set replacement principle. Thirdly, we clarify, in our predicative setting, the relation between the traditional definition of sup-lattice that requires suprema for all subsets and our definition that asks for suprema of all small families.

Citations (7)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.