Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-n9wrp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T23:28:54.493Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Monoidal weak ω-categories as models of a type theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2022

Thibaut Benjamin*
Affiliation:
LIX, Ecole Polytechnique, 1 rue Honoré d’Estienne d’Orves, Palaiseau 91120, France

Abstract

Weak $\omega$-categories are notoriously difficult to define because of the very intricate nature of their axioms. Various approaches have been explored based on different shapes given to the cells. Interestingly, homotopy type theory encompasses a definition of weak $\omega$-groupoid in a globular setting, since every type carries such a structure. Starting from this remark, Brunerie could extract this definition of globular weak $\omega$-groupoids, formulated as a type theory. By refining its rules, Finster and Mimram have then defined a type theory called $\mathsf{CaTT}$, whose models are weak $\omega$-categories. Here, we generalize this approach to monoidal weak $\omega$-categories. Based on the principle that they should be equivalent to weak $\omega$-categories with only one 0-cell, we are able to derive a type theory $\mathsf{MCaTT}$ whose models are monoidal weak $\omega$-categories. This requires changing the rules of the theory in order to encode the information carried by the unique 0-cell. The correctness of the resulting type theory is shown by defining a pair of translations between our type theory $\mathsf{MCaTT}$ and the type theory $\mathsf{CaTT}$. Our main contribution is to show that these translations relate the models of our type theory to the models of the type theory $\mathsf{CaTT}$ consisting of $\omega$-categories with only one 0-cell by analyzing in details how the notion of models interact with the structural rules of both type theories.

Type
Special Issue: Homotopy Type Theory 2019
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Altenkirch, T. and Rypacek, O. (2012). A syntactical approach to weak omega-groupoids. In: Computer Science Logic (CSL’12)-26th International Workshop/21st Annual Conference of the EACSL. Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik.Google Scholar
Ara, D. (2010). Sur les $\infty$ -groupoïdes de Grothendieck et une variante $\infty$ -catégorique. Phd thesis, Université Paris 7.Google Scholar
Baez, J. (2006). Lectures on n-categories and cohomology. Notes by M. Shulman.Google Scholar
Baez, J. C. and Dolan, J. (1995). Higher-dimensional algebra and topological quantum field theory. Journal of Mathematical Physics 36 (11) 60736105.10.1063/1.531236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batanin, M. A. (1998). Monoidal globular categories as a natural environment for the theory of weakn-categories. Advances in Mathematics 136 (1) 39103.10.1006/aima.1998.1724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benjamin, T. (2020). A Type Theoretic Approach to Weak $\omega$ -Categories and Related Higher Structures. Phd thesis, Institut Polytechnique de Paris.Google Scholar
Benjamin, T., Finster, E. and Mimram, S. (2021). Globular weak $\omega$ -categories as models of a type theory. arXiv preprint, arXiv:2106.04475.Google Scholar
Benjamin, T. and Mimram, S. (2019). Suspension et Fonctorialité: Deux Opérations Implicites Utiles en CaTT. Journées Francophones des Langages Applicatifs.Google Scholar
Brunerie, G. (2016). On the homotopy groups of spheres in homotopy type theory. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.05916.Google Scholar
Burroni, A. (1993). Higher-dimensional word problems with applications to equational logic. Theoretical Computer Science 115 (1) 4362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, E. and Lauda, A. (2004). Higher-dimensional categories: an illustrated guide book. Preprint.Google Scholar
Dybjer, P. (1996). Internal type theory. In: Types for Proofs and Programs. TYPES 1995, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 120134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finster, E. and Mimram, S. (2017). A type-theoretical definition of weak $\omega$ -categories. In: 2017 32nd Annual ACM/IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS), 112.Google Scholar
Finster, E., Reutter, D. and Vicary, J. (2020). A type theory for strictly unital $\infty$ -categories. arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.08307.Google Scholar
Gabriel, P. and Ulmer, F. (2006). Lokal präsentierbare kategorien, vol. 221, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Grothendieck, A. (1983). Pursuing stacks. unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Leinster, T. (2002). A survey of definitions of n-category. Theory and applications of Categories 10 (1) 170.Google Scholar
Leinster, T. (2004). Higher Operads, Higher Categories (London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511525896 Google Scholar
Lumsdaine, P. L. (2009). Weak $\omega$ -categories from intensional type theory. In: International Conference on Typed Lambda Calculi and Applications, Springer, 172187.Google Scholar
Maltsiniotis, G. (2010). Grothendieck $\infty$ -groupoids, and still another definition of $\infty$ -categories. Preprint arXiv:1009.2331.Google Scholar
Street, R. (1976). Limits indexed by category-valued 2-functors. Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra 8 (2) 149181.10.1016/0022-4049(76)90013-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
The Univalent Foundations Program. (2013). Homotopy Type Theory: Univalent Foundations of Mathematics. https://homotopytypetheory.org/book, Institute for Advanced Study.Google Scholar
Van Den Berg, B. and Garner, R. (2011). Types are weak $\omega$ -groupoids. Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society 102 (2) 370394.Google Scholar