<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 6:49 AM Daniel Lee <<a href="mailto:laniel@seas.upenn.edu" target="_blank">laniel@seas.upenn.edu</a>> wrote:<br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>So just to make sure I understand correctly, the reason that associativity is impossible to prove in the "wild categories" setting is that you not only need associativity in the original category, but also a sort of "second level" notion of associativity in the composition of the commutative diagrams?</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes, that's right.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div> And the reason it goes through when you assume that hom-sets are sets is that any two commutative diagrams, as long as their components are the same, are now assumed to be identical. Is that right?</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Exactly!</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>Then, is it possible to add this higher-dimensional coherence rather than removing higher-dimensional structure completely?<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes, it's possible. But then you're not using ordinary categories (a.k.a. 1-categories a.k.a. categories) anymore, then you would work with generalizations. There are many different such generalizations of 1-categories, an overview is here:</div><div><a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/higher+category+theory" target="_blank">https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/higher+category+theory</a><br></div><div>These generalizations are more powerful and (in many situations) more useful than 1-categories, but also more complicated and often harder to work with. It's a trade-off, as always. The generalization that I'm most interested in is (infinity,1)-categories [see nLab link above] because this is the simplest well-behaved notion of category which the type-theoretic universe is an instance of. Put differently, if you want to work with a well-behaved notion of category and you need the universe to be such a category, then you either need to make an assumption such as --with-K, or you need to go to at least (infinity,1)-categories. If you don't want to go there and work with 1-categories, you can restrict the universe to h-sets; this will be a perfectly fine 1-category.</div><div>Adding the coherences is hard in practice and in theory, see here for approaches:</div><div><a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.03693">https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.03693</a> (popl'18)<br></div><div><a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.01883">https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.01883</a></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div></div><div>I think I'll try out the setoid approach Jacques suggested, it does seem like it could make things easier. Are there any major downsides to this approach which would be useful to know. I've heard of talk of "setoid hell" before where you build up a ton of extra proof obligations. Should I be worried about that in this case?<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I think the options that you have are:</div><div>(1) the approach you currently use, i.e. standard Agda, postulate function extensionality</div><div>(2) use setoids for the hom-sets of categories</div><div>(3) use cubical Agda with sets (h-sets) for the hom-sets.</div><div>Some people here have voiced some pretty strong opinions. I'm not the right person to give advice on how to implement things, but I personally would definitely check out possibility 3. 1&2 can certainly work, and people here have done it very successfully with these strategies, but 1&2 have drawbacks that you've already encountered or heard of. In comparison, cubical Agda allows you to do things in a clean and conceptually satisfying way.</div><div> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div></div><div>Lastly, how would you recommend defining hom/represented functors? Currently, I've used a universe category parametrized by some level 'c' whose objects are 'Set c'. Will I run into similar issues with "wildness" if I don't enforce that the objects in the category are sets?<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>It really depends on the definition of category that you want to work with. My suggestion would be to use 1-categories (not the generalizations, save that for later), where you require the hom-sets to be sets, as you already did. If you do this, 'Set' (or 'Set c') is not a category, so what you've written doesn't even type check anymore. But 'Set' restricted to sets (i.e. Sigma(A : Set). is-set(A)) works just fine as a replacement.</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers,</div><div>Nicolai</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div></div><div><br></div><div>Thanks again for the help.</div><div><br></div><div>Best,</div><div>Daniel</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 7:22 PM Nicolai Kraus <<a href="mailto:nicolai.kraus@gmail.com" target="_blank">nicolai.kraus@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
Hi Daniel,<br>
<br>
nice Agda project! But using the winter break to learn category
theory, topology, HoTT, AND to formalise things in Agda sounds
pretty ambitious to me ;-)<br>
<br>
The short answer to your question is "no". There's no nice way to do
this without the assumption that hom-sets are sets (or another
assumption). Actually, there is just no way at all, not even an ugly
one. It's not just involved and tedious and hard to read, it's not
provable. The comma category construction does not work for the
notion of categories that you use.<br>
<br>
To see why, look at your Agda code:<br>
When you define the objects of the comma category, you need to use
objects + morphisms of the original categories.<br>
When you define the morphisms of the comma category, you need to
use morphisms + composition of the original categories.<br>
When you define composition in the comma category, you need
composition + associativity of the original categories.<br>
Do you see where this is going? You always need "one level more" of
the original categories than you currently define in the comma
category.<br>
Thus, when you want to prove associativity for the comma category,
you should expect that you need more than only associativity of the
original categories: you also need the first coherence condition for
associativity, known as "MacLane's pentagon". MacLane's pentagon
doesn't show up explicitly for standard categories (where it is
automatic), but it shows up when you study e.g. bicategories.
Something similar happens for the identity laws.<br>
<br>
The notion of categories that you currently consider is badly
behaved. We call them "wild categories" (or "naive" or "incoherent"
or "approximate"). They are higher-dimensional categories, but with
almost all coherence structure removed. To understand why this is
bad, think about categories where you don't require composition to
be associative: you can probably imagine that all sorts of
constructions from standard category theory will break.<br>
<br>
Your approach to require hom-sets to be sets is the standard
approach. It ensures that the categories behave like standard
1-categories. It implies MacLane's pentagon coherence and all other
coherences. Thus, it's a really strong assumption, but it's the
right assumption if you want to do 1-category theory in this style.
This is also how it's done in the HoTT book. I think this is
equivalent to Jacques' approach with setoids, but I haven't checked
this in detail. ("Equivalent" in the sense that the two approaches
should make the same constructions possible, not equivalent in terms
of how tedious things can become.)<br>
<br>
"--with-K" would, of course, imply that hom-sets are sets. But it
also would mean that the type of objects (and everything else) is a
set. This is quite restrictive. For example, your development
wouldn't capture univalent categories. I don't know whether the
added convenience would make up for the loss of generality.<br>
<br>
The issue that you found here is a pretty deep one. This issue,
together with things that are very much related, causes the problem
and motivates the constructions in this paper:<br>
<a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.01883" target="_blank">https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.01883</a><br>
See also Section 3.2, "Deficiency of Wild/Incoherent Structure", for
a discussion. Especially Example 9, which uses a slice category
(special case of the comma category, where one can already see the
issues).<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
Nicolai<br>
<br>
<br>
<div>On 15/12/2020 01:40, Daniel Lee wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Hi everyone,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I'm an undergraduate in CS, trying to use this winter break
to learn category theory via Categories in Context (and
hopefully topology and HoTT). I thought it would be cool to
formalize in Agda at the same time. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div><font face="arial, sans-serif">Here's the link to the
Agda development for reference: </font><a href="https://github.com/dan-iel-lee/categories-in-agda" target="_blank">https://github.com/dan-iel-lee/categories-in-agda</a>
. Relevant files are probably "Core" and "Examples/Comma".</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I've run into a roadblock, specifically with proving that
the comma category is a category, but which I imagine could be
an issue in the future as well.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I've defined the arrows in the category as:</div>
<div><font face="monospace">Σ[ (h , k) ∈ d ⟶ᴰ d' × e ⟶ᴱ e' ] f'
∘ (ℱ h) ≡ (𝒢 k) ∘ f</font></div>
<div><font face="monospace"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font face="arial, sans-serif">Where h and k are the
component arrows, and the body of the Sigma is the
commutativity condition. Defining composition and identity
are relatively straightforward, but proving the left/right
unit and associativity properties become difficult
because it requires proving that the identities are
identified. And because there are a lot of steps,
compositions,... involved, the Goal is super hard to read
and I don't know where to start in trying to prove it. I
managed to work around it by enforcing that all the hom-sets
are sets (in the sense that their identification types are
all identical). Is there a nice way to prove this without
using proof irrelevance though?</font></div>
<div><font face="arial, sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font face="arial, sans-serif">All help is very very
appreciated. Thanks :)))</font></div>
<div><font face="arial, sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font face="arial, sans-serif">Best,</font></div>
<div><font face="arial, sans-serif">Daniel</font></div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<pre>_______________________________________________
Agda mailing list
<a href="mailto:Agda@lists.chalmers.se" target="_blank">Agda@lists.chalmers.se</a>
<a href="https://lists.chalmers.se/mailman/listinfo/agda" target="_blank">https://lists.chalmers.se/mailman/listinfo/agda</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div></div>