6.4 Circles and spheres
We have already discussed the circle π1 as the higher inductive type generated by
-
β’
A point π»πΊππΎ:π1, and
-
β’
A path π πππ:π»πΊππΎ=π1π»πΊππΎ.
Its induction principle says that given P:π1βπ° along with b:P(π»πΊππΎ) and β:b=Pπ
πππb, we have f:β(x:π1)P(x) with f(π»πΊππΎ)β‘b and πΊππ½f(π
πππ)=β.
Its non-dependent recursion principle says that given B with b:B and β:b=b, we have f:π1βB with f(π»πΊππΎ)β‘b and f(π
πππ)=β.
We observe that the circle is nontrivial.
Lemma 6.4.1.
π πππβ ππΎπΏπ π»πΊππΎ.
Proof.
Suppose that π πππ=ππΎπΏπ π»πΊππΎ. Then since for any type A with x:A and p:x=x, there is a function f:π1βA defined by f(π»πΊππΎ):β‘x and f(π πππ):=p, we have
p=f(π πππ)=f(ππΎπΏπ π»πΊππΎ)=ππΎπΏπ x. |
But this implies that every type is a set, which as we have seen is not the case (see Example 3.1.9 (http://planetmath.org/31setsandntypes#Thmpreeg6)). β
The circle also has the following interesting property, which is useful as a source of counterexamples.
Lemma 6.4.2.
There exists an element of β(x:S1)(x=x) which is not equal to xβ¦reflx.
Proof.
We define f:β(x:π1)(x=x) by π1-induction.
When x is π»πΊππΎ, we let f(π»πΊππΎ):β‘π
πππ.
Now when x varies along π
πππ (see Remark 6.2.4 (http://planetmath.org/62inductionprinciplesanddependentpaths#Thmprermk3)), we must show that πππΊππππππxβ¦x=x(π
πππ,π
πππ)=π
πππ.
However, in Β§2.11 (http://planetmath.org/211identitytype) we observed that πππΊππππππxβ¦x=x(p,q)=p-1\centerdotq\centerdotp, so what we have to show is that π
πππ-1\centerdotπ
πππ\centerdotπ
πππ=π
πππ.
But this is clear by canceling an inverse.
To show that fβ (xβ¦ππΎπΏπ x), it suffices by function extensionality to show that f(π»πΊππΎ)β ππΎπΏπ π»πΊππΎ. But f(π»πΊππΎ)=π πππ, so this is just the previous lemma. β
For instance, this enables us to extend Example 3.1.9 (http://planetmath.org/31setsandntypes#Thmpreeg6) by showing that any universe which contains the circle cannot be a 1-type.
Corollary 6.4.3.
If the type S1 belongs to some universe U, then U is not a 1-type.
Proof.
The type π1=π1 in π° is, by univalence, equivalent to the type π1βπ1 of autoequivalences of π1, so it suffices to show that π1βπ1 is not a set.
For this, it suffices to show that its equality type ππ½π1=(π1βπ1)ππ½π1 is not a mere proposition.
Since being an equivalence is a mere proposition, this type is equivalent to ππ½π1=(π1βπ1)ππ½π1.
But by function extensionality, this is equivalent to β(x:π1)(x=x), which as we have seen in Lemma 6.4.2 (http://planetmath.org/64circlesandspheres#Thmprelem2) contains two unequal elements.
β
We have also mentioned that the 2-sphere π2 should be the higher inductive type generated by
-
β’
A point π»πΊππΎ:π2, and
-
β’
A 2-dimensional path ππππΏ:ππΎπΏπ π»πΊππΎ=ππΎπΏπ π»πΊππΎ in π»πΊππΎ=π»πΊππΎ.
The recursion principle for π2 is not hard: it says that given B with b:B and s:ππΎπΏπ
b=ππΎπΏπ
b, we have f:π2βB with f(π»πΊππΎ)β‘b and πΊπ2f(ππππΏ)=s.
Here by βπΊπ2f(ππππΏ)β we mean an extension of the functorial action of f to two-dimensional paths, which can be stated precisely as follows.
Lemma 6.4.4.
Given f:AβB and x,y:A and p,q:x=y, and r:p=q, we have a path ap2f(r):f(p)=f(q).
Proof.
By path induction, we may assume pβ‘q and r is reflexivity.
But then we may define πΊπ2f(ππΎπΏπ
p):β‘ππΎπΏπ
f(p).
β
In order to state the general induction principle, we need a version of this lemma for dependent functions, which in turn requires a notion of dependent two-dimensional paths. As before, there are many ways to define such a thing; one is by way of a two-dimensional version of transport.
Lemma 6.4.5.
Given P:AβU and x,y:A and p,q:x=y and r:p=q, for any u:P(x) we have transport2(r,u):p*(u)=q*(u).
Proof.
By path induction. β
Now suppose given x,y:A and p,q:x=y and r:p=q and also points u:P(x) and v:P(y) and dependent paths h:u=Ppv and k:u=Pqv. By our definition of dependent paths, this means h:p*(u)=v and k:q*(u)=v. Thus, it is reasonable to define the type of dependent 2-paths over r to be
(h=Prk):β‘(h=πππΊππππππ2(r,u)\centerdotk). |
We can now state the dependent version of Lemma 6.4.4 (http://planetmath.org/64circlesandspheres#Thmprelem3).
Lemma 6.4.6.
Given P:AβU and x,y:A and p,q:x=y and r:p=q and a function f:β(x:A)P(x), we have apd2f(r):apdf(p)=Prapdf(q).
Proof.
Path induction. β
Now we can state the induction principle for π2: given P:π2βP with b:P(π»πΊππΎ) and s:ππΎπΏπ b=PππππΏππΎπΏπ b, there is a function f:β(x:π2)P(x) such that f(π»πΊππΎ)β‘b and πΊππ½2f(ππππΏ)=s.
Of course, this explicit approach gets more and more complicated as we go up in dimension.
Thus, if we want to define n-spheres for all n, we need some more systematic idea.
One approach is to work with n-dimensional loops directly, rather than general n-dimensional paths.
Recall from Β§2.1 (http://planetmath.org/21typesarehighergroupoids) the definitions of pointed types π°*, and the n-fold loop space Ξ©n:π°*βπ°*
(Definition 2.1.7 (http://planetmath.org/21typesarehighergroupoids#Thmpredefn1) and Definition 2.1.8 (http://planetmath.org/21typesarehighergroupoids#Thmpredefn2)). Now we can define the
n-sphere πn to be the higher inductive type generated by
-
β’
A point π»πΊππΎ:πn, and
-
β’
An n-loop π πππn:Ξ©n(πn,π»πΊππΎ).
In order to write down the induction principle for this presentation, we would need to define a notion of βdependent n-loopβ, along with the action of dependent functions on n-loops.
We leave this to the reader (see http://planetmath.org/node/87769Exercise 6.4); in the next section
we will discuss a different way to define the spheres that is sometimes more tractable.
Title | 6.4 Circles and spheres |
---|---|
\metatable |