2025/02/24

Newest at the top

2025-02-24 12:13:57 +0100 <euouae> but e.g. in the HoTT book in the Appendix the type universes are presented as U_1, U_2, ... and I think those are types, kinds, higher kinds, etc
2025-02-24 12:13:51 +0100 <ncf> or do you mean universe levels? this is one of the choices you can make; you can have a MLTT with no universes, or one universe, or a countable hierarchy of universes, or crazier things
2025-02-24 12:13:34 +0100 <euouae> I'm doing personal "research" so there's no fixed order/set of papers/articles I'm reading
2025-02-24 12:13:03 +0100 <ncf> euouae: i think that might depend on how you present the syntax and what you mean by "order". i don't think the answer is very significant
2025-02-24 12:10:45 +0100CiaoSen(~Jura@2a02:8071:64e1:7180:4e50:ddff:fe9b:8922) (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
2025-02-24 12:09:51 +0100ethantwardy(user@user/ethantwardy) (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
2025-02-24 12:08:49 +0100 <euouae> jackdk: thanks for the links, I will check them out. I can at least say I've seen the diagram of the first video before
2025-02-24 12:08:27 +0100 <euouae> I don't quite grasp the significance of that. also last question I promise. thank you
2025-02-24 12:08:11 +0100 <euouae> I know for the lambda cube only two sorts are used, types and kinds, say
2025-02-24 12:07:43 +0100 <euouae> Does MLTT have sorts of order N? Or just 2?
2025-02-24 12:06:21 +0100 <ncf> every model of MLTT is a locally cartesian closed category because that's the structure you need to interpret the basic features of a type theory; but the models may also have more structure to account for the other features
2025-02-24 12:05:36 +0100 <ncf> they don't
2025-02-24 12:03:02 +0100 <euouae> is it like a common core?
2025-02-24 12:02:56 +0100 <euouae> Then how come they all have the same CCC models?
2025-02-24 12:02:45 +0100 <ncf> multiple; there are several choices you can make and features you can add
2025-02-24 12:00:20 +0100fp1fp
2025-02-24 12:00:19 +0100fp(~Thunderbi@130.233.70.89) (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
2025-02-24 12:00:14 +0100 <euouae> and is that a single theory or multiple?
2025-02-24 12:00:01 +0100 <ncf> nlab usually means martin-löf type theory
2025-02-24 11:59:42 +0100 <euouae> e.g. the lambda cube has several, not just CoC at the top
2025-02-24 11:59:33 +0100 <euouae> I see. What is meant by dependent type theory? This is another naive question. I know what a dependent type is vaguely, but I don't think there's a single "theory", that's why I'm asking
2025-02-24 11:58:41 +0100 <ncf> yes
2025-02-24 11:57:52 +0100fp1(~Thunderbi@wireless-86-50-141-43.open.aalto.fi) fp
2025-02-24 11:57:37 +0100 <euouae> I mean *those certain* categories that are specified
2025-02-24 11:56:40 +0100 <euouae> ncf: when that link says categories provide the semantics, does it mean that categories are models for type theories?
2025-02-24 11:56:29 +0100euleritian(~euleritia@ip4d17fae8.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de)
2025-02-24 11:56:12 +0100euleritian(~euleritia@dynamic-176-006-145-147.176.6.pool.telefonica.de) (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2025-02-24 11:55:45 +0100 <jackdk> I wouldn't worry about the meme words (but for completeness, the `...` is "monoid objects", and you need to specify the tensor; see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cB8DapKQz-I ) . I don't know the details, but you can represent lambda calculus terms in CCCs; see Conal Eliott's excellent work on "compiling to categories" at e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WMfKhKKVN4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zooYfk5-yPY
2025-02-24 11:55:12 +0100euleritian(~euleritia@dynamic-176-006-145-147.176.6.pool.telefonica.de)
2025-02-24 11:54:31 +0100euleritian(~euleritia@ip4d17fae8.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de) (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
2025-02-24 11:49:33 +0100 <ncf> i don't understand the question but see https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/relation+between+type+theory+and+category+theory
2025-02-24 11:48:57 +0100acidjnk(~acidjnk@p200300d6e7283f50e1932e8352fc3c3c.dip0.t-ipconnect.de) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2025-02-24 11:46:14 +0100 <euouae> I vaguely have heard of something about cartesian-closed categories, but I'm not sure if they capture all the salient points. What is the idea then? How are functors to be understood in type theory if there is no categorical formulation of it? Or am I missing something?
2025-02-24 11:45:17 +0100 <euouae> From my studies on type theory, e.g. the lambda cube, I can't seem to figure out how type theory (theories) is formalized on category theory. I'm not sure if it is known or not.
2025-02-24 11:44:40 +0100 <euouae> Hello I've been thinking about statements such as 'monads are just ... in the category of endofunctors' (fill in blank for me because I don't know it exactly)
2025-02-24 11:44:18 +0100euouae(~euouae@user/euouae) euouae
2025-02-24 11:43:57 +0100euleritian(~euleritia@ip4d17fae8.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de)
2025-02-24 11:42:50 +0100euleritian(~euleritia@dynamic-176-006-145-147.176.6.pool.telefonica.de) (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2025-02-24 11:38:32 +0100ash3en(~Thunderbi@89.246.174.164) (Remote host closed the connection)
2025-02-24 11:38:28 +0100ash3en(~Thunderbi@89.246.174.164) ash3en
2025-02-24 11:36:52 +0100alfiee(~alfiee@user/alfiee) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2025-02-24 11:32:31 +0100alfiee(~alfiee@user/alfiee) alfiee
2025-02-24 11:22:32 +0100Tuplanolla(~Tuplanoll@91-159-69-59.elisa-laajakaista.fi) Tuplanolla
2025-02-24 11:16:44 +0100kuribas(~user@2a02:1810:2825:6000:f4c8:b5d5:3a82:9bab) kuribas
2025-02-24 11:13:19 +0100rvalue(~rvalue@user/rvalue) rvalue
2025-02-24 11:12:47 +0100rvalue(~rvalue@user/rvalue) (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2025-02-24 11:01:59 +0100merijn(~merijn@77.242.116.146) merijn
2025-02-24 10:53:27 +0100fp(~Thunderbi@130.233.70.89) fp
2025-02-24 10:51:36 +0100lortabac(~lortabac@2a01:e0a:541:b8f0:55ab:e185:7f81:54a4) (Quit: WeeChat 4.5.1)
2025-02-24 10:51:29 +0100alfiee(~alfiee@user/alfiee) (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)