Tom de Jong & Martín Escardó, 8 & 10 September 2023.
Formalising a discussion of 7 September.
As explained in InjectiveTypes.CounterExamples:
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
We already know that if excluded middle holds then all pointed types are
algebraically injective, and that the converse also holds.
So we can't really give an example of any type which is not algebraicxally
injective, other than the empty type. The best we can hope for is to derive a
constructive taboo, rather than a contradiction, from the assumption that a type
of interest would be injective.
Most types one encounters in practice are "not" injective in the above sense. We
can also say "not all types are injective in general", as there are some
∞-toposes which do satisfy excluded middle, as well as some ∞-toposes which
don't, and we intend TypeTopology to apply to all ∞-toposes, except when special
assumptions are made.
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Here we consider the type Inh of inhabited types defined by
Inh = Σ X ꞉ 𝓤 ̇ , ∥ X ∥
and show that the following are equivalent:
(1) Inh is injective.
(2) Inh is a retract of 𝓤.
(3) All propositions are projective:
(P : 𝓤 ̇ ) (Y : P → 𝓤 ̇ ) → is-prop P
→ ((p : P) → ∥ Y p ∥)
→ ∥ (p : P) → Y p ∥.
(4) Every type has unspecified split support:
(X : 𝓤 ̇ ) → ∥ ∥ X ∥ → X ∥.
The equivalence of (3) and (4) was shown in [Theorem 7.7, 1].
As noted in [1], if Y p in statement (3) is a two-element set, then this is
known as the "world's simplest axiom of choice", which fails in some toposes, as
shown in [2].
Also notice that (3) (and thus, (4)) follows from excluded middle.
It is noteworthy that this yields an example of an injective Σ-type whose index
type is "not" injective, as follows: The type of pointed types
𝓤∙ = Σ X ꞉ 𝓤 ̇ , X
is injective, as proved in InjectiveTypes.MathematicalStructures, and is
(equivalent) to the Σ-type
Σ I ꞉ Inh , pr₁ Inh,
indexed over the "non"-injective type Inh.
To illustrate the constructive differences between the propositional truncation
and the double negation, we point out that the type of non-empty types *is*
injective, as shown in InjectiveTypes.NonEmptyTypes.
References
──────────
[1] Nicolai Kraus, Martín Escardó, Thierry Coquand and Thorsten Altenkirch.
Notions of Anonymous Existence in Martin-Löf Type Theory.
Logical Methods in Computer Science 13(1), pp. 1─36, 2017.
https://doi.org/10.23638/LMCS-13(1:15)2017
[2] M. P. Fourman and A. Ščedrov.
The “world's simplest axiom of choice” fails.
Manuscripta Math 38, pp. 325–332, 1982.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01170929
\begin{code}
{-# OPTIONS --safe --without-K #-}
open import MLTT.Spartan
open import UF.Univalence
open import UF.PropTrunc
module InjectiveTypes.InhabitedTypesTaboo
(pt : propositional-truncations-exist)
(ua : Univalence)
(𝓤 : Universe)
where
open PropositionalTruncation pt
open import UF.Base
open import UF.Equiv
open import UF.EquivalenceExamples
open import UF.FunExt
open import UF.Retracts
open import UF.Subsingletons
open import UF.Subsingletons-FunExt
open import UF.UA-FunExt
private
fe : FunExt
fe = Univalence-gives-FunExt ua
fe' : Fun-Ext
fe' {𝓤} {𝓥} = fe 𝓤 𝓥
pe : PropExt
pe = Univalence-gives-PropExt ua
pe' : Prop-Ext
pe' {𝓤} = pe 𝓤
open import InjectiveTypes.Blackboard fe
open import InjectiveTypes.MathematicalStructures ua
\end{code}
We define the type of inhabited of types (in a fixed, but arbitrary universe 𝓤).
For convenience we also write Inh for this type in this file.
\begin{code}
Inhabited : 𝓤 ⁺ ̇
Inhabited = Σ X ꞉ 𝓤 ̇ , ∥ X ∥
private
Inh : 𝓤 ⁺ ̇
Inh = Inhabited
⟨_⟩ : Inh → 𝓤 ̇
⟨_⟩ = pr₁
\end{code}
We define the two (equivalent) choice principles, labelled (3) and (4) at the
top of this file.
\begin{code}
Propositions-Are-Projective : 𝓤 ⁺ ̇
Propositions-Are-Projective = (P : 𝓤 ̇ ) (Y : P → 𝓤 ̇ )
→ is-prop P
→ ((p : P) → ∥ Y p ∥)
→ ∥ ((p : P) → Y p) ∥
Unspecified-Split-Support : 𝓤 ⁺ ̇
Unspecified-Split-Support = (X : 𝓤 ̇ ) → ∥ (∥ X ∥ → X) ∥
\end{code}
We now prove the equivalence of statemements (1)─(4) and summarise the chain of
implications at the end.
\begin{code}
unspecified-split-support-gives-retract : Unspecified-Split-Support
→ retract Inh of (𝓤 ̇ )
unspecified-split-support-gives-retract uss = ρ , σ , ρσ
where
σ : Inh → 𝓤 ̇
σ = ⟨_⟩
ρ : 𝓤 ̇ → Inh
ρ X = (∥ X ∥ → X) , uss X
ρσ : ρ ∘ σ ∼ id
ρσ (X , s) = to-subtype-＝ (λ Y → ∥∥-is-prop)
(eqtoid (ua 𝓤) (∥ X ∥ → X) X e)
where
e = (∥ X ∥ → X) ≃⟨ I ⟩
(𝟙{𝓤} → X) ≃⟨ ≃-sym (𝟙→ fe') ⟩
X ■
where
I = →cong'' fe' fe' (idtoeq ∥ X ∥ 𝟙 II)
where
II : ∥ X ∥ ＝ 𝟙
II = holds-gives-equal-𝟙 pe' ∥ X ∥ ∥∥-is-prop s
retract-gives-injectivity : retract Inh of (𝓤 ̇ )
→ ainjective-type Inh 𝓤 𝓤
retract-gives-injectivity ret = retract-of-ainjective Inh (𝓤 ̇ ) inj ret
where
inj : ainjective-type (𝓤 ̇ ) 𝓤 𝓤
inj = universes-are-ainjective-Π (ua 𝓤)
flabbiness-gives-projective-propositions : aflabby Inh 𝓤
→ Propositions-Are-Projective
flabbiness-gives-projective-propositions ϕ P Y P-is-prop Y-inh = I
where
f : P → Inh
f p = (Y p , Y-inh p)
ext : Σ X ꞉ Inh , ((p : P) → X ＝ f p)
ext = ϕ P P-is-prop f
X : 𝓤 ̇
X = pr₁ (pr₁ ext)
s : ∥ X ∥
s = pr₂ (pr₁ ext)
ext-property : (p : P) → (X , s) ＝ (Y p , Y-inh p)
ext-property = pr₂ ext
ext-property' : (p : P) → X ＝ Y p
ext-property' p = ap ⟨_⟩ (ext-property p)
II : X → (p : P) → Y p
II x p = idtofun X (Y p) (ext-property' p) x
I : ∥ ((p : P) → Y p) ∥
I = ∥∥-functor II s
injectivity-gives-projective-propositions : ainjective-type Inh 𝓤 𝓤
→ Propositions-Are-Projective
injectivity-gives-projective-propositions inj =
flabbiness-gives-projective-propositions (ainjective-types-are-aflabby Inh inj)
projective-propositions-gives-unspecified-split-support :
Propositions-Are-Projective → Unspecified-Split-Support
projective-propositions-gives-unspecified-split-support pap X =
pap ∥ X ∥ (λ _ → X) ∥∥-is-prop id
\end{code}
For convenience, we provide a summary of the chain of implications:
\begin{code}
summary : (Unspecified-Split-Support → retract Inh of (𝓤 ̇ ))
× (retract Inh of (𝓤 ̇ ) → ainjective-type Inh 𝓤 𝓤)
× (ainjective-type Inh 𝓤 𝓤 → Propositions-Are-Projective)
× (Propositions-Are-Projective → Unspecified-Split-Support)
summary = unspecified-split-support-gives-retract
, retract-gives-injectivity
, injectivity-gives-projective-propositions
, projective-propositions-gives-unspecified-split-support
\end{code}
Observe that the concatenation of the first three implications yields an
alternative (w.r.t. [1]), non-direct proof of the following:
\begin{code}
unspecified-split-support-gives-projective-propositions :
Unspecified-Split-Support → Propositions-Are-Projective
unspecified-split-support-gives-projective-propositions uss =
injectivity-gives-projective-propositions
(retract-gives-injectivity
(unspecified-split-support-gives-retract uss))
\end{code}
Finally, we recall that the type 𝓤∙ of pointed types *is* injective
and record that 𝓤∙ is equivalent to the Σ-type
Σ I ꞉ Inh , ⟨ I ⟩,
which is indexed over the "non"-injective type Inh.
Hence this gives an example of an injective Σ-type whose indexing type
is not necessarily injective.
\begin{code}
private
𝓤∙ : 𝓤 ⁺ ̇
𝓤∙ = Σ X ꞉ 𝓤 ̇ , X
𝓤∙-is-injective : ainjective-type 𝓤∙ 𝓤 𝓤
𝓤∙-is-injective = ainjectivity-of-type-of-pointed-types
𝓤∙-as-Σ-type-over-Inh : 𝓤∙ ≃ (Σ I ꞉ Inh , ⟨ I ⟩)
𝓤∙-as-Σ-type-over-Inh = 𝓤∙ ≃⟨ Σ-cong e ⟩
(Σ X ꞉ 𝓤 ̇ , ∥ X ∥ × X) ≃⟨ ≃-sym Σ-assoc ⟩
(Σ I ꞉ Inh , ⟨ I ⟩) ■
where
e : (X : 𝓤 ̇ ) → X ≃ ∥ X ∥ × X
e X = qinveq f (g , η , ε)
where
f : X → ∥ X ∥ × X
f x = ∣ x ∣ , x
g : ∥ X ∥ × X → X
g = pr₂
η : g ∘ f ∼ id
η x = refl
ε : f ∘ g ∼ id
ε (s , x) = to-×-＝ (∥∥-is-prop ∣ x ∣ s) refl
example-of-injective-sum-whose-index-type-may-not-be-injective
: Σ X ꞉ (𝓤 ⁺) ̇
, Σ Y ꞉ (X → 𝓤 ̇ )
, ainjective-type (Σ Y) 𝓤 𝓤
× (ainjective-type X 𝓤 𝓤 → Propositions-Are-Projective)
example-of-injective-sum-whose-index-type-may-not-be-injective
= Inh , ⟨_⟩ , A-ainj , injectivity-gives-projective-propositions
where
A = Σ I ꞉ Inh , ⟨ I ⟩
A-ainj : ainjective-type A 𝓤 𝓤
A-ainj = equiv-to-ainjective
A
𝓤∙
𝓤∙-is-injective
(≃-sym 𝓤∙-as-Σ-type-over-Inh)
\end{code}