Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-15T18:31:19.923Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Homotopy theoretic models of identity types

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2009

STEVE AWODEY
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, U.S.A. e-mail: awodey@andrew.cmu.edu, mwarren@andrew.cmu.edu
MICHAEL A. WARREN
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, U.S.A. e-mail: awodey@andrew.cmu.edu, mwarren@andrew.cmu.edu

Extract

Quillen [17] introduced model categories as an abstract framework for homotopy theory which would apply to a wide range of mathematical settings. By all accounts this program has been a success and—as, e.g., the work of Voevodsky on the homotopy theory of schemes [15] or the work of Joyal [11, 12] and Lurie [13] on quasicategories seem to indicate—it will likely continue to facilitate mathematical advances. In this paper we present a novel connection between model categories and mathematical logic, inspired by the groupoid model of (intensional) Martin–Löf type theory [14] due to Hofmann and Streicher [9]. In particular, we show that a form of Martin–Löf type theory can be soundly modelled in any model category. This result indicates moreover that any model category has an associated “internal language” which is itself a form of Martin-Löf type theory. This suggests applications both to type theory and to homotopy theory. Because Martin–Löf type theory is, in one form or another, the theoretical basis for many of the computer proof assistants currently in use, such as Coq and Agda (cf. [3] and [5]), this promise of applications is of a practical, as well as theoretical, nature.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge Philosophical Society 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

[1]Abadi, M., Cardelli, L., Curien, P.–L. and Lévy, J.–J. Explicit substitution. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (ACM Press, 1989), 31–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2]Bénabou, J.Fibred categories and the foundations of naive category theory. J. Symbolic Logic 50 (1985), 1037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3]Bertot, Y. and Castéran, P.Interactive Theorem Proving and Program Development (Springer-Verlag, 2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4]Bousfield, A. K.Constructions of factorization systems in categories. J. Pure Appl. Algebra 9 (1977), 207220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5]Coquand, C. and Coquand, T. Structured type theory. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Logical Frameworks and Meta-Languages (LFM'99), Paris (1999) http://www.site.uottawa.ca/afelty/LFM99/.Google Scholar
[6]Curien, P.-L.Substitution up to isomorphism. Fund. Informaticae 19 (1993), 5186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7]Dwyer, W. G. and Spalinski, J. Homotopy theories and model categories. In Handbook of Algebraic Topology, James, I. M., editor (North-Holland, 1995), 73126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[8]Hofmann, M. On the interpretation of type theory in locally cartesian closed categories. In Computer Science Logic 1994, Tiuryn, J. and Pacholski, Leszek, editors (Springer-Verlag, 1995), 427441.Google Scholar
[9]Hofmann, M. and Streicher, T. The groupoid interpretation of type theory. In Twenty-Five Years of Constructive Type Theory, Sambin, G. and Smith, J., editors (Oxford University Press, 1998), 83111.Google Scholar
[10]Hovey, M.Model Categories. Math. Surv. Monogr. 63 (American Mathematical Society, 1999).Google Scholar
[11]Joyal, A.Quasi-categories and Kan complexes. J. Pure Appl. Algebra 175 (2002), 207222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[12]Joyal, A. Notes on quasi-categories. Unpublished manuscript (2007).Google Scholar
[13]Lurie, J. Higher topos theory. Unpublished manuscript, available on the arXiv as arXiv:math/0608040 (2007).Google Scholar
[14]Martin-Löf, P. An intuitionistic theory of types: predicative part. In Logic Colloquium '73, Rose, H. E. and Shepherdson, J. C., editors (North-Holland, 1975), 73118.Google Scholar
[15]Morel, F. and Voevodsky, V.A 1-homotopy theory of schemes. Inst. Hautes Etudes Sci Pub. Math. 90 (1999), 45143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[16]Nordström, B., Petersson, K. and Smith, J. M.Programming in Martin–Löf's Type Theory. An Introduction (Oxford University Press, 1990).Google Scholar
[17]Quillen, D.Homotopical Algebra. Lecture Notes in Mathematics (Springer-Verlag, 1967).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[18]Seely, R. A. G.Locally cartesian closed categories and type theory. Math. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 95 (1984), 3348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[19]Streicher, T. Investigations into intensional type theory. Habilitationsschrift, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (1993).Google Scholar
[20]Warren, M. A. Homotopy theoretic aspects of constructive type theory. PhD. thesis. Carnegie Mellon University. In preparation.Google Scholar