You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The standard construction of universes a la Tarski is sometimes considered the only formal definition of universes in type theory.
One problem of working with them is that we have El : Tm Γ 𝕌 → Ty Γ but no inverse. Lack of inverse is sensible and is used to sidestep a paradox. That implies that we can't formally omit El, when working with universes. There seems to be a nice alternative to standard universes though: universes a la Coquand a la Tarski.
We have an indexed statement: Tmᵢ₊₁ Γ 𝕌 ≅ Tyᵢ Γ. That is, El now has an inverse. But what's even nicer about them is that we can now ask for stricter: Tmᵢ₊₁ Γ 𝕌 ≡ Tyᵢ Γ hence formally justifying Russell-style universes.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
The standard construction of universes a la Tarski is sometimes considered the only formal definition of universes in type theory.
One problem of working with them is that we have
El : Tm Γ 𝕌 → Ty Γ
but no inverse. Lack of inverse is sensible and is used to sidestep a paradox. That implies that we can't formally omitEl
, when working with universes. There seems to be a nice alternative to standard universes though: universes a la Coquand a la Tarski.We have an indexed statement:
Tmᵢ₊₁ Γ 𝕌 ≅ Tyᵢ Γ
. That is,El
now has an inverse. But what's even nicer about them is that we can now ask for stricter:Tmᵢ₊₁ Γ 𝕌 ≡ Tyᵢ Γ
hence formally justifying Russell-style universes.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: