Skip to content

Conversation

@ricky136973
Copy link

The original join-assoc in Cubical.HITs.Join assumes all types involved are of level 0. This restriction can be relaxed to only require the types being of the same level, not necessarily 0.

@anshwad10
Copy link
Contributor

Why do they have to be the same level? why not generalize it more so that they can all be different levels

@ricky136973 ricky136973 marked this pull request as draft May 18, 2025 00:06
@ricky136973 ricky136973 marked this pull request as ready for review May 20, 2025 04:23
@ricky136973
Copy link
Author

ricky136973 commented May 20, 2025

The original proof does not type check if I just simply assigning the types with different levels. I renamed it into join-assoc-samelevel and wrote a new join-assoc using the old one that supports different levels.

@anshwad10
Copy link
Contributor

anshwad10 commented May 20, 2025

The original proof does not type check if I just simply assigning the types with different levels.

Why would that be? only reason I can think of is that the lemmas it was using (spanEquivToPushoutPath and 3x3-span.3x3-lemma) weren't level-polymorphic enough, but if thats the case why not generalize them too?

@anshwad10
Copy link
Contributor

anshwad10 commented Jun 19, 2025

Ah, I think I see the problem. All the lemmas you're using are fully polymorphic, but I think the only problem is that it uses paths instead of equivalences. So you could make another lemma called join-assoc-≃ and use the equivalence version of all the lemmas (use isoToEquiv 3x3-Iso instead of 3x3-lemma, and apply pathToEquiv to spanEquivToPushoutPath). Afterwards you could then turn it into join-assoc using univalence. This would definitely be better than messing with Lifts, and it would be more useful to have an equivalence version as well<\del>

@anshwad10
Copy link
Contributor

Oh wait, joinAssocDirect already exists

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants