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
Or we should not use it. The use most people in our field put it to conflicts with the classical definition, and equivalence class of spaces modulo homotopy equivalence.
I agree that ”homotopy type” should have as small a place in the text as possible.
A thing I liked about univalence is that it made my colloquialism ”up to deformation” (which I’ve always favored when giving popularizations) into something precise.
Bjorn
On Jul 1, 2023, at 18:06, Daniel R. Grayson ***@***.***> wrote:
Or we should not use it. The use most people in our field put it to conflicts with the classical definition, and equivalence class of spaces modulo homotopy equivalence.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Should be clarified somewhere in the book, currently Appendix B.3.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: