I would be surprised if this characterisation of (homotopy) equivalence has not been considered by other peoples.
The characterisation arises naturally in the theory of quasi-categories.
Let me try to explain.
Let J is the nerve of the groupoid generated by one isomorphism u:0--->1.
It happens that an arrow $f$ in a quasi-category C is invertible in the homotopy category Ho(C) if
and only if it is the image of the arrow $u$ by a map J--->C.
The n-skeleton S^n of the simplicial set J is a simplicial model of the n-sphere (with two nodes 0 and 1).
For example, the 1-skeleton S^1 is a graph with two nodes 0 and 1 and two arrows u:0--->1 and v:1--->0.
The 2-skeleton S^2 is a obtained from S^1 by attaching two triangles (=2-simplices) representing two
homotopies vu-->id_0 and uv-->id_1. But none of the inclusions S^n--->J
is a weak categorical equivalence (in fact none is a weak homotopy equivalence).
Let me say that an extension Delta[1]--->K (=monomorphism) is a *good approximation* of J
if the map K-->pt is a weak categorical equivalence (ie if K is weakly categorically contractible)
For example, the n-skeleton S^n of J is the union of two n-disks S^n(+) and S^n(-).
If n\geq 3, then the disks S^n(+) and S^n(-) are good approximation if J.
In general, an extension Delta[1]--->K is a good approximation of J if and only
if Ho(K) is a groupoid and the map K--->1 is a weak homotopy equivalence (ie $K$ is weakly homotopy contractible).
For example, let U be the union of the outer faces \partial_3Delta[3] and \partial_0Delta[3]
of the 3-simplex Delta[3]. The simplicial set U consists of two triangles 0-->1--->2 and
1--->2---->3 glued together along the edge 1-->2. Consider the quotient q:U--->K
obtained by identifying the edge 0-->2 to a point q(0)=q(2) and the edge 1-->3 of to a point q(1)=q(3).
The simplicial set K has two vertices, q(0) and q(1), and three edges
a:q(0)-->q(1), b:q(1)--->q(0) and c:q(0)-->q(1) respectively the image by q of the edges 0-->1, 1--->2 and 2--->3.
It is easy to verify that Ho(K) is a groupoid and that K is weakly homotopy contractible.
I hope these explanations are not too obscure!
Best regards,
André
________________________________________
From: 'Martin Escardo' via Homotopy Type Theory [HomotopyT...@googlegroups.com]
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2016 8:21 PM
To: HomotopyT...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [HoTT] Re: Joyal's version of the notion of equivalence
Best,
Martin
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Homotopy Type Theory" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to HomotopyTypeThe...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
There are many variations. For example, a homotopy equivalence can be defined to
be a pair of maps f:a--->b and g:b--->a equipped with a pair of homotopies
alpha:gf--->id_a and beta:fg --->id_b satisfying *one*(and only one) of the adjunction (=triangle) identities.
Best,
André
________________________________________
From: Martin Escardo [escardo...@googlemail.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2016 2:31 PM
To: Joyal, André; HomotopyT...@googlegroups.com
Dear all,
I agree with Vladimir that his notion of equivalence is a very clear one, but that doesn't take away that on some occasions it is really helpful to have Joyal's notion around.
For instance, in the definition of localization as a higher inductive type we use Joyal-equivalence, simply to avoid 2-path constructors.
With kind regards,
Egbert
Dear Vladimir,
I completely agree with you.
André
From: homotopytypetheory@googlegroups.com [homotopytypetheory@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Vladimir Voevodsky [vlad...@ias.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 6:17 PM
To: Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine
Cc: Prof. Vladimir Voevodsky; Martin Escardo; Joyal, André; HomotopyTypeTheory@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [HoTT] Re: Joyal's version of the notion of equivalence
I think the clearest formulation is my original one - as the condition of contractibility of the h-fibers.
This is also the first form in which it was introduced and the first explicit formulation and proof of the fact that it is a proposition.
Vladimir.
On Oct 12, 2016, at 5:45 AM, Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine <p.l.lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Although I can see formal proofs that Joyal-equivalence is a proposition (or h-proposition), I am still trying to find the best formal proof that uncovers the essence of this fact. This is why I asked the question of were this formulation of equivalence comes from.
Like André suggested, I feel the nicest viewpoint is the fact that the “free (∞,1)-category on a Joyal-equivalence” is contractible. At least in terms of intuition, the conceptually clearest argument I know for that is as follows.
Look at the *∞-groupoidification* of this free (∞,1)-category, considered as a space. This is a cell complex which we can easily picture: two points x, y, three paths f, g, g' between x and y, and 2-cells giving homotopies f ~ g, f ~ g'. It’s very clear geometrically that this is contractible.
But — the “free (∞,1)-category on a Joyal equivalence” is already an ∞-groupoid — and ∞-groupoidification is idempotent, since groupoids are a full subcategory. So the original (∞,1)-category is equivalent to its groupoidification, so is contractible.
The same approach works for seeing why half-adjoint equivalences are good, but non-adjoint and bi-adjoint equivalences are not. So as regards intuition, I think this is very nice. However, I suspect that if one looks at all the work that goes into setting up the framework needed, then somewhere one will have already used some form of “equivalence is a proposition”. So this is perhaps a little unsatisfactory formally, as it (a) needs a lot of background, and (b) may need to rely on some more elementary proof of the same fact.
The earliest explicit discussion I know of this issue (i.e.“contractibility of the walking equivalence as a quality criterion for structured notions of equivalence) is in Steve Lack’s “A Quillen Model Structure for Bicategories”, fixing an error in his earlier “A Quillen Model Structure for 2-categories”, where he had used non-adjoint equivalences — see http://maths.mq.edu.au/~slack/papers/qmc2cat.html Since it’s just 2-categorical, he’s able to use fully adjoint equivalences — doesn’t have to worry about half-adjointness/coherent-adjointness. Adjoint equivalences of course go back much further — but I don’t know anywhere that this *reason* why they’re better is articulated, before Lack.
And for Joyal-equivalences, I don’t know anywhere they’re explicitly discussed at all, before HoTT. Like Martín, I’d be really interested if anyone does know any earlier sources for them!
–p.--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Homotopy Type Theory" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to HomotopyTypeTheory+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Homotopy Type Theory" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to HomotopyTypeTheory+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Homotopy Type Theory" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to HomotopyTypeTheory+unsub...@googlegroups.com.