Reading the "homotopy type theory" book. A little annoyed that so far it's all about "paths", which they have not defined
-
Show this thread
-
They define the "univalence axiom", but not the set of other axioms it exists within, without which it isn't actually clear what it does
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likesShow this thread -
(The univalence axiom feels at first glance like how they get something like the axiom of reducibility, but this is a wild guess)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 likeShow this thread -
Anyway I'm still in the introduction so I imagine most of this changes.
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
By the way, this is NOT an encouraging sentence to see in an 8-year-old text everyone describes as the standard introduction to its fieldpic.twitter.com/0oW4p5QzB1
8 replies 2 retweets 22 likesShow this thread -
OMG this is a really good sentence (about why FP-flavored computer scientists <3 intuitionistic logic)pic.twitter.com/gmGFRCzQxM
6 replies 9 retweets 39 likesShow this thread -
Fuck mathematics is dramaticpic.twitter.com/3KT6zWSUm0
2 replies 13 retweets 55 likesShow this thread
Yeah, one of the more spectacular and underappreciated results.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.