We know, thanks to Vladimir, that univalence implies both
* FunExt: function extensionality (any two pointwise equal functions
are equal)
and
* PropExt: propositional extensionality (any two logically
equivalent propositions are equal).
These implications hold in a basic intensional Martin-Löf type theory (just containing the ingredients needed to formulate them).
Thus, we may regard univalence as a generalized extensionality axiom for intensional Martin-Löf theories, as has been often emphasized.
Additionally, in informal parlance, we often see propositional extensionality equated with propositional univalence.
Let's clarify this, where we adopt X = Y as a notation for Id X Y:
* PropExt (propositional extensionality): For all propositions P and Q, we have that
(P → Q) and (Q → P) together imply P = Q.
* PropUniv (propositional univalence): For all propositions P and Q, the map
idtoeq_{P,Q} : P = Q → P ≃ Q
is an equivalence.
It is then clear that PropUniv → PropExt. However, the only way to get PropUniv from PropExt that I know of requires function extensionality as an additional assumption. Let's record this as
- PropUniv → PropExt
- FunExt → (PropExt → PropUniv).
Obvious question: does (PropExt→PropUniv) imply FunExt? I don't know.
Less obvious question: Does any of propositional univalence or propositional extensionality imply FunExt? That is, can we "linearize" the extensionality axioms as
UA → PropUniv → PropExt → FunExt,
and, if not, less ambitiously as UA → PropUniv → FunExt?
Even less obvious: is univalence restricted to contractible types (call it ContrUniv) enough to get FunExt?
UA → PropUniv → ContrUniv → FunExt?
Martin