Merge branch 'dev'

.gitignore

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+html/

CHANGELOG.md

@@ -1,6 +1,13 @@
 Change log
 =========
 
+Version 1.6.0
+-------------
+
+This version mainly contains changes to the report.
+
+This is the version I submit for my MSc..
+
 Version 1.5.0
 -------------
 Prove postulates in `Cat.Wishlist`:

Makefile

@@ -1,5 +1,11 @@
 build: src/**.agda
-	agda src/Cat.agda
+	agda --library-file ./libraries src/Cat.agda
 
 clean:
 	find src -name "*.agdai" -type f -delete
+
+html:
+	agda --html src/Cat.agda
+
+upload: html
+	scp -r html/ remote11.chalmers.se:www/cat/doc/

doc/.gitignore

@@ -10,3 +10,5 @@
 *.idx
 *.ilg
 *.ind
+*.nav
+*.snm

doc/BACKLOG.md

@@ -3,5 +3,74 @@ Talk about structure of library:
 
 What can I say about reusability?
 
-Misc
+Meeting with Andrea May 18th
-====
+============================
+
+App. 2 in HoTT gives typing rule for pathJ including a computational
+rule for it.
+
+If you have this computational rule definitionally, then you wouldn't
+need to use `pathJprop`.
+
+In discussion-section I mention HITs. I should remove this or come up
+with a more elaborate example of something you could do, e.g.
+something with pushouts in the category of sets.
+
+The type Prop is a type where terms are *judgmentally* equal not just
+propositionally so.
+
+Maybe mention that Andreas Källberg is working on proving the
+initiality conjecture.
+
+Intensional Type Theory (ITT): Judgmental equality is decidable
+
+Extensional Type Theory (ETT): Reflection is enough to make judgmental
+equality undecidable.
+
+  Reflection : a ≡ b → a = b
+
+ITT does not have reflections.
+
+HTT ~ ITT + axiomatized univalence
+Agda ~ ITT + K-rule
+Coq  ~ ITT (no K-rule)
+Cubical Agda ~ ITT + Path + Glue
+
+Prop is impredicative in Coq (whatever that means)
+
+Prop ≠ hProp
+
+Comments about abstract
+-----
+
+Pattern matching for paths (?)
+
+Intro
+-----
+Main feature of judgmental equality is the conversion rule.
+
+Conor explained: K + eliminators ≡ pat. matching
+
+Explain jugmental equality independently of type-checking
+
+Soundness for equality means that if `x = y` then `x` and `y` must be
+equal according to the theory/model.
+
+Decidability of `=` is a necessary condition for typechecking to be
+decidable.
+
+Canonicity is a nice-to-have though without canonicity terms can get
+stuck. If we postulate results about judgmental equality. E.g. funext,
+then we can construct a term of type natural number that is not a
+numeral. Therefore stating canonicity with natural numbers:
+
+    ∀ t . ⊢ t : N , ∃ n : N . ⊢ t = sⁿ 0 : N
+
+is a sufficient condition to get a well-behaved equality.
+
+Eta-equality for RawFunctor means that the associative law for
+functors hold definitionally.
+
+Computational property for funExt is only relevant in two places in my
+whole formulation. Univalence and gradLemma does not influence any
+proofs.

doc/abstract.tex

@@ -1,21 +1,24 @@
 \chapter*{Abstract}
-The usual notion of propositional equality in intensional type-theory is
+The usual notion of propositional equality in intensional type-theory
-restrictive. For instance it does not admit functional extensionality or
+is restrictive. For instance it does not admit functional
-univalence. This poses a severe limitation on both what is \emph{provable} and
+extensionality nor univalence. This poses a severe limitation on both
-the \emph{re-usability} of proofs. Recent developments have, however, resulted
+what is \emph{provable} and the \emph{re-usability} of proofs. Recent
-in cubical type theory which permits a constructive proof of these two important
+developments have however resulted in cubical type theory which
-notions. The programming language Agda has been extended with capabilities for
+permits a constructive proof of these two important notions. The
-working in such a cubical setting. This thesis will explore the usefulness of
+programming language Agda has been extended with capabilities for
-this extension in the context of category theory.
+working in such a cubical setting. This thesis will explore the
+usefulness of this extension in the context of category theory.
 
-The thesis will motivate and explain why propositional equality in cubical Agda
+The thesis will motivate the need for univalence and explain why
-is more expressive than in standard Agda. Alternative approaches to Cubical Agda
+propositional equality in cubical Agda is more expressive than in
-will be presented and their pros and cons will be explained. It will emphasize
+standard Agda. Alternative approaches to Cubical Agda will be
-why it is useful to have a constructive interpretation of univalence. As an
+presented and their pros and cons will be explained. As an example of
-example of this two formulations of monads will be presented: Namely monaeds in
+the application of univalence two formulations of monads will be
-the monoidal form an monads in the Kleisli form.
+presented: Namely monads in the monoidal form and monads in the
+Kleisli form and under the univalent interpretation it will be shown
+how these are equal.
 
-Finally the thesis will explain the challenges that a developer will face when
+Finally the thesis will explain the challenges that a developer will
-working with cubical Agda and give some techniques to overcome these
+face when working with cubical Agda and give some techniques to
-difficulties. It will also try to suggest how furhter work can help allievate
+overcome these difficulties. It will also try to suggest how further
-some of these challenges.
+work can help alleviate some of these challenges.

doc/acknowledgement.tex

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+\chapter*{Acknowledgements}

doc/acknowledgements.tex

@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+\chapter*{Acknowledgements}
+I would like to thank my supervisor Thierry Coquand for giving me a
+chance to work on this interesting topic. I would also like to thank
+Andrea Vezzosi for some very long and very insightful meetings during
+the project. It is fascinating and almost uncanny how quickly Andrea
+can conjure up various proofs.  I also want to recognize the support
+of Knud Højgaards Fond who graciously sponsored me with a 20.000 DKK
+scholarship which helped toward sponsoring the two years I have spent
+studying abroad. I would also like to give a warm thanks to my fellow
+students Pierre Kraft and Nachiappan Villiappan who have made the time
+spent working on the thesis way more enjoyable. Lastly I would like to
+give a special thanks to Valentina Méndez who have been a great moral
+support throughout the whole process.

doc/appendix/abstract-funext.tex

@@ -0,0 +1,74 @@
+\chapter{Non-reducing functional extensionality}
+\label{app:abstract-funext}
+In two places in my formalization was the computational behaviours of
+functional extensionality used. The reduction behaviour can be
+disabled by marking functional extensionality as abstract. Below the
+fully normalized goal and context with functional extensionality
+marked abstract has been shown. The excerpts are from the module
+%
+\begin{center}
+\sourcelink{Cat.Category.Monad.Voevodsky}
+\end{center}
+%
+where this is also written as a comment next to the proofs. When
+functional extensionality is not abstract the goal and current value
+are the same. It is of course necessary to show the fully normalized
+goal and context otherwise the reduction behaviours is not forced.
+
+\subsubsection*{First goal}
+Goal:
+\begin{verbatim}
+PathP (λ _ → §2-3.§2 omap (λ {z} → pure))
+(§2-fromMonad
+ (.Cat.Category.Monad.toKleisli ℂ
+  (.Cat.Category.Monad.toMonoidal ℂ (§2-3.§2.toMonad m))))
+(§2-fromMonad (§2-3.§2.toMonad m))
+\end{verbatim}
+Have:
+\begin{verbatim}
+PathP
+(λ i →
+   §2-3.§2 K.IsMonad.omap
+   (K.RawMonad.pure
+    (K.Monad.raw
+     (funExt (λ m₁ → K.Monad≡ (.Cat.Category.Monad.toKleisliRawEq ℂ m₁))
+      i (§2-3.§2.toMonad m)))))
+(§2-fromMonad
+ (.Cat.Category.Monad.toKleisli ℂ
+  (.Cat.Category.Monad.toMonoidal ℂ (§2-3.§2.toMonad m))))
+(§2-fromMonad (§2-3.§2.toMonad m))
+\end{verbatim}
+\subsubsection*{Second goal}
+Goal:
+\begin{verbatim}
+PathP (λ _ → §2-3.§1 omap (λ {X} → pure))
+(§1-fromMonad
+ (.Cat.Category.Monad.toMonoidal ℂ
+  (.Cat.Category.Monad.toKleisli ℂ (§2-3.§1.toMonad m))))
+(§1-fromMonad (§2-3.§1.toMonad m))
+\end{verbatim}
+Have:
+\begin{verbatim}
+PathP
+(λ i →
+   §2-3.§1
+   (RawFunctor.omap
+    (Functor.raw
+     (M.RawMonad.R
+      (M.Monad.raw
+       (funExt
+        (λ m₁ → M.Monad≡ (.Cat.Category.Monad.toMonoidalRawEq ℂ m₁)) i
+        (§2-3.§1.toMonad m))))))
+   (λ {X} →
+      fst
+      (M.RawMonad.pureNT
+       (M.Monad.raw
+        (funExt
+         (λ m₁ → M.Monad≡ (.Cat.Category.Monad.toMonoidalRawEq ℂ m₁)) i
+         (§2-3.§1.toMonad m))))
+      X))
+(§1-fromMonad
+ (.Cat.Category.Monad.toMonoidal ℂ
+  (.Cat.Category.Monad.toKleisli ℂ (§2-3.§1.toMonad m))))
+(§1-fromMonad (§2-3.§1.toMonad m))
+\end{verbatim}

doc/chalmerstitle.sty

@@ -46,7 +46,8 @@
 {\Huge\@title}\\[.5cm]
 {\Large A formalization of category theory in Cubical Agda}\\[6cm]
 \begin{center}
-\includegraphics[width=\linewidth,keepaspectratio]{isomorphism.png}
+\includegraphics[width=\linewidth,keepaspectratio]{assets/isomorphism.pdf}
+%% \includepdf{isomorphism.pdf}
 \end{center}
 % Cover text
 \vfill

doc/conclusion.tex

@@ -1,45 +1,53 @@
 \chapter{Conclusion}
-This thesis highlighted some issues with the standard inductive definition of
+This thesis highlighted some issues with the standard inductive
-propositional equality used in Agda. Functional extensionality and univalence
+definition of propositional equality used in Agda.  Functional
-are examples of two propositions not admissible in Intensional Type Theory
+extensionality and univalence are examples of two propositions not
-(ITT). This has a big impact on what is provable and the reusability of proofs.
+admissible in Intensional Type Theory (ITT).  This has a big impact on
-This issue is overcome with an extension to Agda's type system called Cubical
+what is provable and the reusability of proofs.  This issue is
-Agda. With Cubical Agda both functional extensionality and univalence are
+overcome with an extension to Agda's type system called Cubical Agda.
-admissible. Cubical Agda is more expressive, but there are certain issues that
+With Cubical Agda both functional extensionality and univalence are
-arise that are not present in standard Agda. For one thing ITT and standard Agda
+admissible.  Cubical Agda is more expressive, but there are certain
-enjoys Uniqueness of Identity Proofs (UIP). This is not the case in Cubical
+issues that arise that are not present in standard Agda.  For one
-Agda. In stead there exists a hierarchy of types with increasing
+thing Agda enjoys Uniqueness of Identity Proofs (UIP) though a flag
-\nomen{homotopical structure}. It turns out to be useful to built the
+exists to turn this off.  This feature is not present in Cubical Agda.
+Rather than having unique identity proofs cubical Agda gives rise to a
+hierarchy of types with increasing \nomen{homotopical
+  structure}{homotopy levels}.  It turns out to be useful to built the
 formalization with this hierarchy in mind as it can simplify proofs
-considerably. Another issue one must overcome in Cubical Agda is when a type has
+considerably.  Another issue one must overcome in Cubical Agda is when
-a field whose type depends on a previous field. In this case paths between such
+a type has a field whose type depends on a previous field.  In this
-types will be heterogeneous paths. This problem is related to Cubical Agda not
+case paths between such types will be heterogeneous paths.  In
-having the K-rule \TODO{Not mentioned anywhere in the report}. In practice it
+practice it turns out to be considerably more difficult to work with
-turns out to be considerably more difficult to work heterogeneous paths than
+heterogeneous paths than with homogeneous paths.  The thesis
-with homogeneous paths. The thesis demonstrated some techniques to overcome
+demonstrated the application of some techniques to overcome these
-these difficulties, such as based path-induction.
+difficulties, such as based path induction.
 
-This thesis formalized some of the core concepts from category theory including;
+This thesis formalizes some of the core concepts from category theory
-categories, functors, products, exponentials, Cartesian closed categories,
+including; categories, functors, products, exponentials, Cartesian
-natural transformations, the yoneda embedding, monads and more. Category theory
+closed categories, natural transformations, the yoneda embedding,
-is an interesting case-study for the application of Cubical Agda for two reasons
+monads and more.  Category theory is an interesting case study for the
-in particular: Because category theory is the study of abstract algebra of
+application of cubical Agda for two reasons in particular: Because
-functions, meaning that functional extensionality is particularly relevant.
+category theory is the study of abstract algebra of functions, meaning
-Another reason is that in category theory it is commonplace to identify
+that functional extensionality is particularly relevant.  Another
-isomorphic structures and univalence allows for making this notion precise. This
+reason is that in category theory it is commonplace to identify
-thesis also demonstrated another technique that is common in category theory;
+isomorphic structures.  Univalence allows for making this notion
-namely to define categories to prove properties of other structures.
+precise.  This thesis also demonstrated another technique that is
-Specifically a category was defined to demonstrate that any two product objects
+common in category theory; namely to define categories to prove
-in a category are isomorphic. Furthermore the thesis showed two formulations of
+properties of other structures.  Specifically a category was defined
-monads and proved that they indeed are equivalent: Namely monads in the
+to demonstrate that any two product objects in a category are
-monoidal- and Kleisli- form. The monoidal formulation is more typical to
+isomorphic.  Furthermore the thesis showed two formulations of monads
-category theoretic formulations and the Kleisli formulation will be more
+and proved that they indeed are equivalent: Namely monads in the
-familiar to functional programmers. In the formulation we also saw how paths can
+monoidal- and Kleisli- form.  The monoidal formulation is more typical
-be used to extract functions. A path between two types induce an isomorphism
+to category theoretic formulations and the Kleisli formulation will be
-between the two types. This e.g. permits developers to write a monad instance
+more familiar to functional programmers.  It would have been very
-for a given type using the Kleisli formulation. By transporting along the path
+difficult to make a similar proof with setoids and the proof would be
-between the monoidal- and Kleisli- formulation one can reuse all the operations
+very difficult to read.  In the formulation we also saw how paths can
-and results shown for monoidal- monads in the context of kleisli monads.
+be used to extract functions.  A path between two types induce an
+isomorphism between the two types.  This e.g.\ permits developers to
+write a monad instance for a given type using the Kleisli formulation.
+By transporting along the path between the monoidal- and Kleisli-
+formulation one can reuse all the operations and results shown for
+monoidal- monads in the context of kleisli monads.
 %%
 %% problem with inductive type
 %% overcome with cubical

doc/cubical.tex

@@ -1,36 +1,36 @@
 \chapter{Cubical Agda}
 \section{Propositional equality}
-Judgmental equality in Agda is a feature of the type-system. Its something that
+Judgmental equality in Agda is a feature of the type system. It is
-can be checked automatically by the type-checker: In the example from the
+something that can be checked automatically by the type checker: In
-introduction $n + 0$ can be judged to be equal to $n$ simply by expanding the
+the example from the introduction $n + 0$ can be judged to be equal to
-definition of $+$.
+$n$ simply by expanding the definition of $+$.
 
-On the other hand, propositional equality is something defined within the
+On the other hand, propositional equality is something defined within
-language itself. Propositional equality cannot be derived automatically. The
+the language itself. Propositional equality cannot be derived
-normal definition of judgmental equality is an inductive data-type. Cubical Agda
+automatically. The normal definition of judgmental equality is an
-discards this type in favor of a new primitives that has certain computational
+inductive data type. Cubical Agda discards this type in favor of some
-properties exclusive to it.
+new primitives.
 
-Exceprts of the source code relevant to this section can be found in appendix
+Most of the source code related with this section is implemented in
-\S\ref{sec:app-cubical}.
+\cite{cubical-demo} it can be browsed in hyperlinked and syntax
+highlighted HTML online. The links can be found in the beginning of
+section \S\ref{ch:implementation}.
 
 \subsection{The equality type}
-The usual notion of judgmental equality says that given a type $A \tp \MCU$ and
+The usual notion of judgmental equality says that given a type $A \tp
-two points of $A$; $a_0, a_1 \tp A$ we can form the type:
+\MCU$ and two points hereof $a_0, a_1 \tp A$ we can form the type:
 %
 \begin{align}
   a_0 \equiv a_1 \tp \MCU
 \end{align}
 %
-In Agda this is defined as an inductive data-type with the single constructor
+In Agda this is defined as an inductive data type with the single
-for any $a \tp A$:
+constructor $\refl$ that for any $a \tp A$ gives:
 %
 \begin{align}
   \refl \tp a \equiv a
 \end{align}
 %
-For any $a \tp A$.
-
 There also exist a related notion of \emph{heterogeneous} equality which allows
 for equating points of different types. In this case given two types $A, B \tp
 \MCU$ and two points $a \tp A$, $b \tp B$ we can construct the type:
@@ -39,8 +39,8 @@ for equating points of different types. In this case given two types $A, B \tp
   a \cong b \tp \MCU
 \end{align}
 %
-This is likewise defined as an inductive data-type with a single constructors
+This likewise has the single constructor $\refl$ that for any $a \tp
-for any $a \tp A$:
+A$ gives:
 %
 \begin{align}
   \refl \tp a \cong a
@@ -53,107 +53,106 @@ heterogeneous paths respectively.
 Judgmental equality in Cubical Agda is encapsulated with the type:
 %
 \begin{equation}
-\Path \tp (P \tp I → \MCU) → P\ 0 → P\ 1 → \MCU
+\Path \tp (P \tp \I → \MCU) → P\ 0 → P\ 1 → \MCU
 \end{equation}
 %
-$I$ is a special data-type (\TODO{that also has special computational properties
+The special type $\I$ is called the index set. The index set can be
-  AFAIK}) called the index set. $I$ can be thought of simply as the interval on
+thought of simply as the interval on the real numbers from $0$ to $1$
-the real numbers from $0$ to $1$. $P$ is a family of types over the index set
+(both inclusive). The family $P$ over $\I$ will be referred to as the
-$I$. I will sometimes refer to $P$ as the ``path-space'' of some path $p \tp
+\nomenindex{path space} given some path $p \tp \Path\ P\ a\ b$. By
-\Path\ P\ a\ b$. By this token $P\ 0$ then corresponds to the type at the
+that token $P\ 0$ corresponds to the type at the left endpoint of $p$.
-left-endpoint and $P\ 1$ as the type at the right-endpoint. The type is called
+Likewise $P\ 1$ is the type at the right endpoint. The type is called
-$\Path$ because it is connected with paths in homotopy theory. The intuition
+$\Path$ because the idea has roots in homotopy theory. The intuition
-behind this is that $\Path$ describes paths in $\MCU$ -- i.e. between types. For
+is that $\Path$ describes\linebreak[1] paths in $\MCU$. I.e.\ paths
-a path $p$ for the point $p\ i$ the index $i$ describes how far along the path
+between types. For a path $p$ the expression $p\ i$ can be thought of
-one has moved. An inhabitant of $\Path\ P\ a_0\ a_1$ is a (dependent-) function,
+as a \emph{point} on this path. The index $i$ describes how far along
-$p$, from the index-space to the path-space:
+the path one has moved. An inhabitant of $\Path\ P\ a_0\ a_1$ is a
+(dependent) function from the index set to the path space:
 %
 $$
-p \tp \prod_{i \tp I} P\ i
+p \tp \prod_{i \tp \I} P\ i
 $$
 %
-Which must satisfy being judgmentally equal to $a_0$ (respectively $a_1$) at the
+Which must satisfy being judgmentally equal to $a_0$ at the
-endpoints. I.e.:
+left endpoint and equal to $a_1$ at the other end. I.e.:
 %
 \begin{align*}
   p\ 0 & = a_0 \\
   p\ 1 & = a_1
 \end{align*}
 %
-The notion of ``homogeneous equalities'' is recovered when $P$ does not depend
+The notion of \nomenindex{homogeneous equalities} is recovered when $P$ does not
-on its argument:
+depend on its argument. That is for $A \tp \MCU$ and $a_0, a_1 \tp A$ the
+homogenous equality between $a_0$ and $a_1$ is the type:
 %
 $$
-a_0 \equiv a_1 \defeq \Path\ (\lambda i \to A)\ a_0\ a_1
+a_0 \equiv a_1 \defeq \Path\ (\lambda\;i \to A)\ a_0\ a_1
 $$
 %
-For $A \tp \MCU$, $a_0, a_1 \tp A$. I will generally prefer to use the notation
+I will generally prefer to use the notation $a \equiv b$ when talking
-$a \equiv b$ when talking about non-dependent paths and use the notation
+about non-dependent paths and use the notation $\Path\ (\lambda\; i
-$\Path\ (\lambda i \to P\ i)\ a\ b$ when the path-space is of particular
+\to P\ i)\ a\ b$ when the path space is of particular interest.
-interest.
 
 With this definition we can also recover reflexivity. That is, for any $A \tp
 \MCU$ and $a \tp A$:
 %
 \begin{equation}
 \begin{aligned}
-\refl & \tp \Path (\lambda i \to A)\ a\ a \\
+\refl & \tp a \equiv a \\
-\refl & \defeq \lambda i \to a
+\refl & \defeq \lambda\; i \to a
 \end{aligned}
 \end{equation}
 %
-Here the path-space is $P \defeq \lambda i \to A$ and it satsifies $P\ i = A$
+Here the path space is $P \defeq \lambda\; i \to A$ and it satsifies
-definitionally. So to inhabit it, is to give a path $I \to A$ which is
+$P\ i = A$ definitionally. So to inhabit it, is to give a path $\I \to
-judgmentally $a$ at either endpoint. This is satisfied by the constant path;
+A$ which is judgmentally $a$ at either endpoint. This is satisfied by
-i.e. the path that stays at $a$ at any index $i$.
+the constant path; i.e.\ the path that is constantly $a$ at any index
+$i \tp \I$.
 
-It is also surpisingly easy to show functional extensionality with which we can
+It is also surprisingly easy to show functional extensionality.
-construct a path between $f$ and $g$ -- the function defined in the introduction
+Functional extensionality is the proposition that given a type $A \tp
-(section \S\ref{sec:functional-extensionality}).
+\MCU$, a family of types $B \tp A \to \MCU$ and functions $f, g \tp
-%% module _ {ℓa ℓb} {A : Set ℓa} {B : A → Set ℓb} where
+\prod_{a \tp A} B\ a$ gives:
-%%   funExt : {f g : (x : A) → B x} → ((x : A) → f x ≡ g x) → f ≡ g
-Functional extensionality is the proposition, given a type $A \tp \MCU$, a
-family of types $B \tp A \to \MCU$ and functions $f, g \tp \prod_{a \tp A}
-B\ a$:
 %
 \begin{equation}
 \label{eq:funExt}
-\funExt \tp \prod_{a \tp A} f\ a \equiv g\ a \to f \equiv g
+\funExt \tp \left(\prod_{a \tp A} f\ a \equiv g\ a \right) \to f \equiv g
 \end{equation}
 %
-%% p = λ i a → p a i
+%% p = λ\; i a → p a i
-So given $p \tp \prod_{a \tp A} f\ a \equiv g\ a$ we must give a path $f \equiv
+So given $η \tp \prod_{a \tp A} f\ a \equiv g\ a$ we must give a path $f \equiv
-g$. That is a function $I \to \prod_{a \tp A} B\ a$. So let $i \tp I$ be given.
+g$. That is a function $\I \to \prod_{a \tp A} B\ a$. So let $i \tp \I$ be given.
 We must now give an expression $\phi \tp \prod_{a \tp A} B\ a$ satisfying
 $\phi\ 0 \equiv f\ a$ and $\phi\ 1 \equiv g\ a$. This neccesitates that the
 expression must be a lambda-abstraction, so let $a \tp A$ be given. Now we can
-apply $a$ to $p$ and get the path $p\ a \tp f\ a \equiv g\ a$. And this exactly
+apply $a$ to $η$ and get the path $η\ a \tp f\ a \equiv g\ a$. And this exactly
-satisfied the conditions for $\phi$. In conclustion \ref{eq:funExt} is inhabited
+satisfies the conditions for $\phi$. In conclustion \ref{eq:funExt} is inhabited
 by the term:
 %
-\begin{equation}
+\begin{equation*}
-\label{eq:funExt}
+\funExt\ η \defeq λ\; i\ a → η\ a\ i
-\funExt\ p \defeq λ i\ a → p\ a\ i
+\end{equation*}
-\end{equation}
 %
-With this we can now prove the desired equality $f \equiv g$ from section
+With $\funExt$ in place we can now construct a path between
-\S\ref{sec:functional-extensionality}:
+$\var{zeroLeft}$ and $\var{zeroRight}$ -- the functions defined in the
+introduction \S\ref{sec:functional-extensionality}:
 %
 \begin{align*}
-  p & \tp f \equiv g \\
+  p & \tp \var{zeroLeft} \equiv \var{zeroRight} \\
-  p & \defeq \funExt\ \lambda n \to \refl
+  p & \defeq \funExt\ \var{zrn}
 \end{align*}
 %
-Paths have some other important properties, but they are not the focus of
+Here $\var{zrn}$ is the proof from \ref{eq:zrn}.
-this thesis. \TODO{Refer the reader somewhere for more info.}
+%
 \section{Homotopy levels}
-In ITT all equality proofs are identical (in a closed context). This means that,
+In ITT all equality proofs are identical (in a closed context). This
-in some sense, any two inhabitants of $a \equiv b$ are ``equally good'' -- they
+means that, in some sense, any two inhabitants of $a \equiv b$ are
-do not have any interesting structure. This is referred to as Uniqueness of
+``equally good''. They do not have any interesting structure. This is
-Identity Proofs (UIP). Unfortunately it is not possible to have a type-theory
+referred to as Uniqueness of Identity Proofs (UIP). Unfortunately it
-with both univalence and UIP. In stead we have a hierarchy of types with an
+is not possible to have a type theory with both univalence and UIP. In
-increasing amount of homotopic structure. At the bottom of this hierarchy we
+stead in cubical Agda we have a hierarchy of types with an increasing
-have the set of contractible types:
+amount of homotopic structure. At the bottom of this hierarchy is the
+set of contractible types:
 %
 \begin{equation}
 \begin{aligned}
@@ -165,11 +164,12 @@ have the set of contractible types:
 \end{equation}
 %
 The first component of $\isContr\ A$ is called ``the center of contraction''.
-Under the propositions-as-types interpretation of type-theory $\isContr\ A$ can
+Under the propositions-as-types interpretation of type theory $\isContr\ A$ can
 be thought of as ``the true proposition $A$''. And indeed $\top$ is
 contractible:
+%
 \begin{equation*}
-\var{tt} , \lambda x \to \refl \tp \isContr\ \top
+(\var{tt} , \lambda\; x \to \refl) \tp \isContr\ \top
 \end{equation*}
 %
 It is a theorem that if a type is contractible, then it is isomorphic to the
@@ -184,23 +184,23 @@ The next step in the hierarchy is the set of mere propositions:
 \end{aligned}
 \end{equation}
 %
-$\isProp\ A$ can be thought of as the set of true and false propositions. And
+One can think of $\isProp\ A$ as the set of true and false propositions. And
 indeed both $\top$ and $\bot$ are propositions:
 %
 \begin{align*}
-λ \var{tt}\ \var{tt} → refl & \tp \isProp\ ⊤ \\
+(λ\; \var{tt}, \var{tt} → refl) & \tp \isProp\ ⊤ \\
-λ\varnothing\ \varnothing   & \tp \isProp\ ⊥
+λ\;\varnothing\ \varnothing   & \tp \isProp\ ⊥
 \end{align*}
 %
-$\varnothing$ is used here to denote an impossible pattern. It is a theorem that
+The term $\varnothing$ is used here to denote an impossible pattern. It is a
-if a mere proposition $A$ is inhabited, then so is it contractible. If it is not
+theorem that if a mere proposition $A$ is inhabited, then so is it contractible.
-inhabited it is equivalent to the empty-type (or false
+If it is not inhabited it is equivalent to the empty-type (or false
-proposition).\TODO{Cite!!}
+proposition).
 
-I will refer to a type $A \tp \MCU$ as a \emph{mere} proposition if I want to
+I will refer to a type $A \tp \MCU$ as a \emph{mere proposition} if I want to
 stress that we have $\isProp\ A$.
 
-Then comes the set of homotopical sets:
+The next step in the hierarchy is the set of homotopical sets:
 %
 \begin{equation}
 \begin{aligned}
@@ -209,13 +209,14 @@ Then comes the set of homotopical sets:
 \end{aligned}
 \end{equation}
 %
-I will not give an example of a set at this point. It turns out that proving
+I will not give an example of a set at this point. It turns out that
-e.g. $\isProp\ \bN$ is not so straight-forward (see \cite[\S3.1.4]{hott-2013}).
+proving e.g.\ $\isProp\ \bN$ directly is not so straightforward (see
-There will be examples of sets later in this report. At this point it should be
+\cite[\S3.1.4]{hott-2013}). Hedberg's theorem states that any type
-noted that the term ``set'' is somewhat conflated; there is the notion of sets
+with decidable equality is a set. There will be examples of sets later
-from set-theory, in Agda types are denoted \texttt{Set}. I will use it
+in this report. At this point it should be noted that the term ``set''
-consistently to refer to a type $A$ as a set exactly if $\isSet\ A$ is a
+is somewhat conflated; there is the notion of sets from set-theory, in
-proposition.
+Agda types are denoted \texttt{Set}. I will use it consistently to
+refer to a type $A$ as a set exactly if $\isSet\ A$ is a proposition.
 
 As the reader may have guessed the next step in the hierarchy is the type:
 %
@@ -228,8 +229,9 @@ As the reader may have guessed the next step in the hierarchy is the type:
 %
 And so it continues. In fact we can generalize this family of types by indexing
 them with a natural number. For historical reasons, though, the bottom of the
-hierarchy, the contractible types, is said to be a \nomen{-2-type}, propositions
+hierarchy, the contractible types, is said to be a \nomen{-2-type}{homotopy
-are \nomen{-1-types}, (homotopical) sets are \nomen{0-types} and so on\ldots
+  levels}, propositions are \nomen{-1-types}{homotopy levels}, (homotopical)
+sets are \nomen{0-types}{homotopy levels} and so on\ldots
 
 Just as with paths, homotopical sets are not at the center of focus for this
 thesis. But I mention here some properties that will be relevant for this
@@ -238,90 +240,171 @@ exposition:
 Proposition: Homotopy levels are cumulative. That is, if $A \tp \MCU$ has
 homotopy level $n$ then so does it have $n + 1$.
 
-Let $\left\Vert A \right\Vert = n$ denote that the level of $A$ is $n$.
+For any level $n$ it is the case that to be of level $n$ is a mere proposition.
-Proposition: For any homotopic level $n$ this is a mere proposition.
 %
 \section{A few lemmas}
-Rather than getting into the nitty-gritty details of Agda I venture to take a
+Rather than getting into the nitty-gritty details of Agda I venture to
-more ``combinator-based'' approach. That is, I will use theorems about paths
+take a more ``combinator-based'' approach. That is I will use
-already that have already been formalized. Specifically the results come from
+theorems about paths that have already been formalized.
-the Agda library \texttt{cubical} (\TODO{Cite}). I have used a handful of
+Specifically the results come from the Agda library \texttt{cubical}
-results from this library as well as contributed a few lemmas myself.\footnote{The module \texttt{Cat.Prelude} lists the upstream dependencies. As well my contribution to \texttt{cubical} can be found in the git logs \TODO{Cite}.}
+(\cite{cubical-demo}). I have used a handful of results from this
+library as well as contributed a few lemmas myself%
+\footnote{The module \texttt{Cat.Prelude} lists the upstream
+  dependencies. As well my contribution to \texttt{cubical} can be
+  found in the git logs which are available at
+  \hrefsymb{https://github.com/Saizan/cubical-demo}{\texttt{https://github.com/Saizan/cubical-demo}}.
+}.
 
-These theorems are all purely related to homotopy theory and cubical Agda and as
+These theorems are all purely related to homotopy type theory and as
-such not specific to the formalization of Category Theory. I will present a few
+such not specific to the formalization of Category Theory. I will
-of these theorems here, as they will be used later in chapter
+present a few of these theorems here as they will be used throughout
-\ref{ch:implementation} throughout.
+chapter \ref{ch:implementation}. They should also give the reader some
+intuition about the path type.
 
 \subsection{Path induction}
 \label{sec:pathJ}
-The induction principle for paths intuitively gives us a way to reason about a
+The induction principle for paths intuitively gives us a way to reason
-type-family indexed by a path by only considering if said path is $\refl$ (the
+about a type family indexed by a path by only considering if said path
-``base-case''). For \emph{based path induction}, that equality is \emph{based}
+is $\refl$ (the \nomen{base case}{path induction}). For \emph{based
-at some element $a \tp A$.
+  path induction}, that equality is \emph{based} at some element $a
+\tp A$.
 
-Let a type $A \tp \MCU$ and an element of the type $a \tp A$ be given. $a$ is said to be the base of the induction. Given a family of types:
+\pagebreak[3]
+\begin{samepage}
+Let a type $A \tp \MCU$ and an element of the type $a \tp A$ be
+given. $a$ is said to be the base of the induction.\linebreak[3] Given
+a family of types:
 %
 $$
-P \tp \prod_{a' \tp A} \prod_{p \tp a ≡ a'} \MCU
+D \tp \prod_{b \tp A} \prod_{p \tp a ≡ b} \MCU
 $$
 %
-And an inhabitant of $P$ at $\refl$:
+And an inhabitant of $D$ at $\refl$:
 %
 $$
-p \tp P\ a\ \refl
+d \tp D\ a\ \refl
 $$
 %
 We have the function:
 %
 \begin{equation}
-\pathJ\ P\ p \tp \prod_{a' \tp A} \prod_{p \tp a ≡ a'} P\ a\ p
+\pathJ\ D\ d \tp \prod_{b \tp A} \prod_{p \tp a ≡ b} D\ b\ p
+\end{equation}
+\end{samepage}%
+
+A simple application of $\pathJ$ is for proving that $\var{sym}$ is an
+involution. Namely for any set $A \tp \MCU$, points $a, b \tp A$ and a path
+between them $p \tp a \equiv b$:
+%
+\begin{equation}
+\label{eq:sym-invol}
+\var{sym}\ (\var{sym}\ p) ≡ p
 \end{equation}
 %
-I will not give an example of using $\pathJ$ here. An application can be found
+The proof will be by induction on $p$ and will be based at $a$. That
-later in \ref{eq:pathJ-example}.
+is $D$ will be the family:
+%
+\begin{align*}
+D         & \tp \prod_{b' \tp A} \prod_{p \tp a ≡ b'} \MCU \\
+D\ b'\ p' & \defeq \var{sym}\ (\var{sym}\ p') ≡ p'
+\end{align*}
+%
+The base case will then be:
+%
+\begin{align*}
+d & \tp \var{sym}\ (\var{sym}\ \refl) ≡ \refl \\
+d & \defeq \refl
+\end{align*}
+%
+The reason $\refl$ proves this is that $\var{sym}\ \refl = \refl$ holds
+definitionally. In summary \ref{eq:sym-invol} is inhabited by the term:
+%
+\begin{align*}
+  \pathJ\ D\ d\ b\ p
+  \tp
+  \var{sym}\ (\var{sym}\ p) ≡ p
+\end{align*}
+%
+Another application of $\pathJ$ is for proving associativity of $\trans$. That
+is, given a type $A \tp \MCU$, elements of $A$, $a, b, c, d \tp A$ and paths
+between them $p \tp a \equiv b$, $q \tp b \equiv c$ and $r \tp c \equiv d$ we
+have the following:
+%
+\begin{equation}
+  \label{eq:cum-trans}
+  \trans\ p\ (\trans\ q\ r) ≡ \trans\ (\trans\ p\ q)\ r
+\end{equation}
+%
+In this case the induction will be based at $c$ (the left-endpoint of $r$) and
+over the family:
+%
+\begin{align*}
+  T       & \tp \prod_{d' \tp A} \prod_{r' \tp c ≡ d'} \MCU \\
+  T\ d'\ r' & \defeq \trans\ p\ (\trans\ q\ r') ≡ \trans\ (\trans\ p\ q)\ r'
+\end{align*}
+%
+So the base case is proven with $t$ which is defined as:
+%
+\begin{align*}
+  \trans\ p\ (\trans\ q\ \refl) & ≡
+  \trans\ p\ q \\
+   & ≡
+  \trans\ (\trans\ p\ q)\ \refl
+\end{align*}
+%
+Here we have used the proposition $\trans\ p\ \refl \equiv p$ without proof. In
+conclusion \ref{eq:cum-trans} is inhabited by the term:
+%
+\begin{align*}
+\pathJ\ T\ t\ d\ r
+\end{align*}
+%
+We shall see another application of path induction in \ref{eq:pathJ-example}.
 
 \subsection{Paths over propositions}
 \label{sec:lemPropF}
-Another very useful combinator is $\lemPropF$:
+Another very useful combinator is $\lemPropF$: Given a type $A \tp
-
+\MCU$ and a type family on $A$; $D \tp A \to \MCU$. Let $\var{propD}
-To `promote' this to a dependent path we can use another useful combinator;
+\tp \prod_{x \tp A} \isProp\ (D\ x)$ be the proof that $D$ is a mere
-$\lemPropF$. Given a type $A \tp \MCU$ and a type family on $A$; $P \tp A \to
+proposition for all elements of $A$. Furthermore say we have a path
-\MCU$. Let $\var{propP} \tp \prod_{x \tp A} \isProp\ (P\ x)$ be the proof that
+between some two elements in $A$; $p \tp a_0 \equiv a_1$ then we can
-$P$ is a mere proposition for all elements of $A$. Furthermore say we have a
+built a heterogeneous path between any two elements of $d_0 \tp
-path between some two elements in $A$; $p \tp a_0 \equiv a_1$ then we can built
+D\ a_0$ and $d_1 \tp D\ a_1$.
-a heterogeneous path between any two elements of $p_0 \tp P\ a_0$ and $p_1 \tp
-P\ a_1$:
 %
 $$
-\lemPropF\ \var{propP}\ p \defeq \Path\ (\lambda\; i \mto P\ (p\ i))\ p_0\ p_1
+\lemPropF\ \var{propD}\ p \tp \Path\ (\lambda\; i \mto D\ (p\ i))\ d_0\ d_1
 $$
 %
-This is quite a mouthful. So let me try to show how this is a very general and
+Note that $d_0$ and $d_1$, though points of the same family, have
-useful result.
+different types. This is quite a mouthful. So let me try to show how
+this is a very general and useful result.
 
 Often when proving equalities between elements of some dependent types
-$\lemPropF$ can be used to boil this complexity down to showing that the
+$\lemPropF$ can be used to boil this complexity down to showing that
-dependent parts of the type are mere propositions. For instance, saw we have a type:
+the dependent parts of the type are mere propositions. For instance
+say we have a type:
 %
 $$
-T \defeq \sum_{a \tp A} P\ a
+T \defeq \sum_{a \tp A} D\ a
 $$
 %
-For some proposition $P \tp A \to \MCU$. If we want to prove $t_0 \equiv t_1$
+For some proposition $D \tp A \to \MCU$. That is we have $\var{propD}
-for two elements $t_0, t_1 \tp T$ then this will be a pair of paths:
+\tp \prod_{a \tp A} \isProp\ (D\ a)$. If we want to prove $t_0 \equiv
+t_1$ for two elements $t_0, t_1 \tp T$ then this will be a pair of
+paths:
 %
 %
 \begin{align*}
   p \tp & \fst\ t_0 \equiv \fst\ t_1 \\
-        & \Path\ (\lambda i \to P\ (p\ i))\ \snd\ t_0 \equiv \snd\ t_1
+        & \Path\ (\lambda\; i \to D\ (p\ i))\ (\snd\ t_0)\ (\snd\ t_1)
 \end{align*}
 %
-Here $\lemPropF$ directly allow us to prove the latter of these:
+Here $\lemPropF$ directly allow us to prove the latter of these given
+that we have already provided $p$.
 %
 $$
-\lemPropF\ \var{propP}\ p
+\lemPropF\ \var{propD}\ p
-  \tp \Path\ (\lambda i \to P\ (p\ i))\ \snd\ t_0 \equiv \snd\ t_1
+  \tp \Path\ (\lambda\; i \to D\ (p\ i))\ (\snd\ t_0)\ (\snd\ t_1)
 $$
 %
 \subsection{Functions over propositions}
@@ -335,9 +418,9 @@ $$
 \subsection{Pairs over propositions}
 \label{sec:propSig}
 %
-$\sum$-types preserve propositionality whenever its first component is a
+$\sum$-types preserve propositionality whenever its first component is
-proposition, and its second component is a proposition for all points of in the
+a proposition, and its second component is a proposition for all
-left type.
+points of the left type.
 %
 $$
 \mathit{propSig} \tp \isProp\ A \to \left(\prod_{a \tp A} \isProp\ (P\ a)\right) \to \isProp\ \left(\sum_{a \tp A} P\ a\right)

doc/discussion.tex

@@ -1,74 +1,139 @@
 \chapter{Perspectives}
 \section{Discussion}
-In the previous chapter the practical aspects of proving things in Cubical Agda
+In the previous chapter the practical aspects of proving things in
-were highlighted. I also demonstrated the usefulness of separating ``laws'' from
+Cubical Agda were highlighted.  I also demonstrated the usefulness of
-``data''. One of the reasons for this is that dependencies within types can lead
+separating ``laws'' from ``data''.  One of the reasons for this is that
-to very complicated goals. One technique for alleviating this was to prove that
+dependencies within types can lead to very complicated goals.  One
-certain types are mere propositions.
+technique for alleviating this was to prove that certain types are
+mere propositions.
 
 \subsection{Computational properties}
-Another aspect (\TODO{That I actually did not highlight very well in the
+The new contribution of cubical Agda is that it has a constructive
-  previous chapter}) is the computational nature of paths. Say we have
+proof of functional extensionality\index{functional extensionality}
-formalized this common result about monads:
+and univalence\index{univalence}.  This means that in particular that
+the type checker can reduce terms defined with these theorems.  So one
+interesting result of this development is how much this influenced the
+development.  In particular having a functional extensionality that
+``computes'' should simplify some proofs.
 
-\TODO{Some equation\ldots}
+I have tested this by using a feature of Agda where one can mark
+certain bindings as being \emph{abstract}.  This means that the
+type-checker will not try to reduce that term further during type
+checking.  I tried making univalence and functional extensionality
+abstract.  It turns out that the conversion behaviour of univalence is
+not used anywhere.  For functional extensionality there are two places
+in the whole solution where the reduction behaviour is used to
+simplify some proofs.  This is in showing that the maps between the
+two formulations of monads are inverses.  See the notes in this
+module:
+%
+\begin{center}
+\sourcelink{Cat.Category.Monad.Voevodsky}
+\end{center}
+%
 
-By transporting this to the Kleisli formulation we get a result that we can use
+I will not reproduce it in full here as the type is quite involved. In
-to compute with. This is particularly useful because the Kleisli formulation
+stead I have put this in a source listing in \ref{app:abstract-funext}.
-will be more familiar to programmers e.g. those coming from a background in
+The method used to find in what places the computational behaviour of
-Haskell. Whereas the theory usually talks about monoidal monads.
+these proofs are needed has the caveat of only working for places that
+directly or transitively uses these two proofs.  Fortunately though
+the code is structured in such a way that this is the case. So in
+conclusion the way I have structured these proofs means that the
+computational behaviour of functional extensionality and univalence
+has not been so relevant.
 
-\TODO{Mention that with postulates we cannot do this}
+Barring this the computational behaviour of paths can still be useful.
+E.g.\ if a programmer wants to reuse functions that operate on a
+monoidal monads to work with a monad in the Kleisli form that the
+programmer has specified.  To make this idea concrete, say we are
+given some function $f \tp \Kleisli \to T$ having a path between $p
+\tp \Monoidal \equiv \Kleisli$ induces a map $\coe\ p \tp \Monoidal
+\to \Kleisli$.  We can compose $f$ with this map to get $f \comp
+\coe\ p \tp \Monoidal \to T$.  Of course, since that map was
+constructed with an isomorphism these maps already exist and could be
+used directly.  So this is arguably only interesting when one also
+wants to prove properties of applying such functions.
 
 \subsection{Reusability of proofs}
-The previous example also illustrate how univalence unifies two otherwise
+The previous example illustrate how univalence unifies two otherwise
-disparate areas: The category-theoretic study of monads; and monads as in
+disparate areas: The category-theoretic study of monads; and monads as
-functional programming. Univalence thus allows one to reuse proofs. You could
+in functional programming.  Univalence thus allows one to reuse proofs.
-say that univalence gives the developer two proofs for the price of one.
+You could say that univalence gives the developer two proofs for the
+price of one.  As an illustration of this I proved that monads are
+groupoids.  I initially proved this for the Kleisli
+formulation\footnote{Actually doing this directly turned out to be
+  tricky as well, so I defined an equivalent formulation which was not
+  formulated with a record, but purely with $\sum$-types.}.  Since the
+two formulations are equal under univalence, substitution directly
+gives us that this also holds for the monoidal formulation.  This of
+course generalizes to any family $P \tp 𝒰 → 𝒰$ where $P$ is inhabited
+at either formulation (i.e.\ either $P\ \Monoidal$ or $P\ \Kleisli$
+holds).
 
-The introduction (section \S\ref{sec:context}) mentioned an often
+The introduction (section \S\ref{sec:context}) mentioned that a
-employed-technique for enabling extensional equalities is to use the
+typical way of getting access to functional extensionality is to work
-setoid-interpretation. Nowhere in this formalization has this been necessary,
+with setoids.  Nowhere in this formalization has this been necessary,
-$\Path$ has been used globally in the project as propositional equality. One
+$\Path$ has been used globally in the project for propositional
-interesting place where this becomes apparent is in interfacing with the Agda
+equality.  One interesting place where this becomes apparent is in
-standard library. Multiple definitions in the Agda standard library have been
+interfacing with the Agda standard library.  Multiple definitions in
-designed with the setoid-interpretation in mind. E.g. the notion of ``unique
+the Agda standard library have been designed with the
-existential'' is indexed by a relation that should play the role of
+setoid-interpretation in mind.  E.g.\ the notion of \emph{unique
-propositional equality. Likewise for equivalence relations, they are indexed,
+  existential} is indexed by a relation that should play the role of
-not only by the actual equivalence relation, but also by another relation that
+propositional equality.  Equivalence relations are likewise indexed,
-serve as propositional equality.
+not only by the actual equivalence relation but also by another
-%% Unfortunately we cannot use the definition of equivalences found in the
+relation that serve as propositional equality.
-%% standard library to do equational reasoning directly. The reason for this is
+%% Unfortunately we cannot use the definition of equivalences found in
-%% that the equivalence relation defined there must be a homogenous relation,
+%% the standard library to do equational reasoning directly.  The
-%% but paths are heterogeneous relations.
+%% reason for this is that the equivalence relation defined there must
+%% be a homogenous relation, but paths are heterogeneous relations.
 
-In the formalization at present a significant amount of energy has been put
+In the formalization at present a significant amount of energy has
-towards proving things that would not have been needed in classical Agda. The
+been put towards proving things that would not have been needed in
-proofs that some given type is a proposition were provided as a strategy to
+classical Agda.  The proofs that some given type is a proposition were
-simplify some otherwise very complicated proofs (e.g.
+provided as a strategy to simplify some otherwise very complicated
-\ref{eq:proof-prop-IsPreCategory} and \label{eq:productPath}). Often these
+proofs (e.g.\ \ref{eq:proof-prop-IsPreCategory}
-proofs would not be this complicated. If the J-rule holds definitionally the
+and \ref{eq:productPath}).  Often these proofs would not be this
-proof-assistant can help simplify these goals considerably. The lack of the
+complicated.  If the J-rule holds definitionally the proof-assistant
-J-rule has a significant impact on the complexity of these kinds of proofs.
+can help simplify these goals considerably.  The lack of the J-rule has
+a significant impact on the complexity of these kinds of proofs.
 
-\TODO{Universe levels.}
+\subsection{Motifs}
+An oft-used technique in this development is using based path
+induction to prove certain properties.  One particular challenge that
+arises when doing so is that Agda is not able to automatically infer
+the family that one wants to do induction over.  For instance in the
+proof $\var{sym}\ (\var{sym}\ p) ≡ p$ from \ref{eq:sym-invol} the
+family that we chose to do induction over was $D\ b'\ p' \defeq
+\var{sym}\ (\var{sym}\ p') ≡ p'$.  However, if one interactively tries
+to give this hole, all the information that Agda can provide is that
+one must provide an element of $𝒰$.  Agda could be more helpful in this
+context, perhaps even infer this family in some situations.  In this
+very simple example this is of course not a big problem, but there are
+examples in the source code where this gets more involved.
 
 \section{Future work}
-\subsection{Agda \texttt{Prop}}
-Jesper Cockx' work extending the universe-level-laws for Agda and the
-\texttt{Prop}-type.
-
 \subsection{Compiling Cubical Agda}
 \label{sec:compiling-cubical-agda}
-Compilation of program written in Cubical Agda is currently not supported. One
+Compilation of program written in Cubical Agda is currently not
-issue here is that the backends does not provide an implementation for the
+supported.  One issue here is that the backends does not provide an
-cubical primitives (such as the path-type). This means that even though the
+implementation for the cubical primitives (such as the path-type).
-path-type gives us a computational interpretation of functional extensionality,
+This means that even though the path-type gives us a computational
-univalence, transport, etc., we do not have a way of actually using this to
+interpretation of functional extensionality, univalence, transport,
-compile our programs that use these primitives. It would be interesting to see
+etc., we do not have a way of actually using this to compile our
-practical applications of this. The path between monads that this library
+programs that use these primitives.  It would be interesting to see
-exposes could provide one particularly interesting case-study.
+practical applications of this.
 
-\subsection{Higher inductive types}
+\subsection{Proving laws of programs}
-This library has not explored the usefulness of higher inductive types in the
+Another interesting thing would be to use the Kleisli formulation of
-context of Category Theory.
+monads to prove properties of functional programs.  The existence of
+univalence will make it possible to re-use proofs stated in terms of
+the monoidal formulation in this setting.
+
+%% \subsection{Higher inductive types}
+%% This library has not explored the usefulness of higher inductive types
+%% in the context of Category Theory.
+
+\subsection{Initiality conjecture}
+A fellow student at Chalmers, Andreas Källberg, is currently working
+on proving the initiality conjecture.  He will be using this library
+to do so.

doc/feedback-meeting-andrea.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+App. 2 in HoTT gives typing rule for pathJ including a computational
+rule for it.
+
+If you have this computational rule definitionally, then you wouldn't
+need to use `pathJprop`.
+
+In discussion-section I mention HITs. I should remove this or come up
+with a more elaborate example of something you could do, e.g.
+something with pushouts in the category of sets.

doc/halftime.tex

@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ I've written this as an appendix because 1) the aim of the thesis changed
 drastically from the planning report/proposal 2) partly I'm not sure how to
 structure my thesis.
 
-My work so far has very much focused on the formalization, i.e. coding. It's
+My work so far has very much focused on the formalization, i.e.\ coding. It's
 unclear to me at this point what I should have in the final report. Here I will
 describe what I have managed to formalize so far and what outstanding challenges
 I'm facing.
@@ -57,8 +57,8 @@ composition and identity, laws; preservation of identity and composition) plus
 the extra condition that it is univalent - namely that you can get an equality
 of two objects from an isomorphism.
 
-I make no distinction between a pre-category and a real category (as in the
+I make no distinction between a pre category and a real category (as in the
-[HoTT]-sense). A pre-category in my implementation would be a category sans the
+[HoTT]-sense). A pre category in my implementation would be a category sans the
 witness to univalence.
 
 I also prove that being a category is a proposition. This gives rise to an

doc/introduction.tex

@@ -1,27 +1,88 @@
 \chapter{Introduction}
+This thesis is a case-study in the application of cubical Agda in the
+context of category theory. At the center of this is the notion of
+\nomenindex{equality}. In type-theory there are two pervasive notions
+of equality: \nomenindex{judgmental equality} and
+\nomenindex{propositional equality}. Judgmental equality is a property
+of the type system. Judgmental equality on the other hand is usually
+defined \emph{within} the system. When introducing definitions this
+report will use the symbol $\defeq$. Judgmental equalities will be
+denoted with $=$ and for propositional equalities the notation
+$\equiv$ is used.
+
+The rules of judgmental equality are related with $β$- and
+$η$-reduction which gives a notion of computation in a given type
+theory.
+%
+There are some properties that one usually want judgmental equality to
+satisfy. It must be \nomenindex{sound}, enjoy \nomenindex{canonicity}
+and be a \nomenindex{congruence relation}. Soundness means that things
+judged to be equal are equal with respects to the \nomenindex{model}
+of the theory or the \emph{meta theory}. It must be a congruence
+relation because otherwise the relation certainly does not adhere to
+our notion of equality. One would be able to conclude things like: $x
+\equiv y \rightarrow f\ x \nequiv f\ y$. Canonicity means that any
+well typed term evaluates to a \emph{canonical} form. For example for
+a closed term $e \tp \bN$ it will be the case that $e$ reduces to $n$
+applications of $\mathit{suc}$ to $0$ for some $n$; $e =
+\mathit{suc}^n\ 0$. Without canonicity terms in the language can get
+``stuck'' meaning that they do not reduce to a canonical form.
+
+To work as a programming languages it is necessary for judgmental
+equality to be \nomenindex{decidable}. Being decidable simply means
+that that an algorithm exists to decide whether two terms are equal.
+For any practical implementation the decidability must also be
+effectively computable.
+
+For propositional equality the decidability requirement is relaxed. It
+is not in general possible to decide the correctness of logical
+propositions (cf.\ Hilbert's \emph{entscheidigungsproblem}).
+
+There are two flavors of type-theory. \emph{Intensional-} and
+\emph{extensional-} type theory (ITT and ETT respectively). Identity
+types in extensional type theory are required to be
+\nomen{propositions}{proposition}. That is, a type with at most one
+inhabitant. In extensional type theory the principle of reflection
+%
+$$a ≡ b → a = b$$
+%
+is enough to make type checking undecidable. This report focuses on
+Agda which at a glance can be thought of as a version of intensional
+type theory. Pattern-matching in regular Agda lets one prove
+\nomenindex{Uniqueness of Identity Proofs} (UIP). UIP states that any
+two identity proofs are propositionally identical.
+
+The usual notion of propositional equality in ITT is quite
+restrictive. In the next section a few motivating examples will
+highlight this. There exist techniques to circumvent these problems,
+as we shall see. This thesis will explore an extension to Agda that
+redefines the notion of propositional equality and as such is an
+alternative to these other techniques. The extension is called cubical
+Agda. Cubical Agda drops UIP as this does not permit
+\nomenindex{functional extensionality} and
+\nomenindex{univalence}. What makes this extension particularly
+interesting is that it gives a \emph{constructive} interpretation of
+univalence. What all this means will be elaborated in the following
+sections.
+%
 \section{Motivating examples}
 %
-In the following two sections I present two examples that illustrate some
+In the following two sections I present two examples that illustrate
-limitations inherent in ITT and -- by extension -- Agda.
+some limitations inherent in ITT and -- by extension -- Agda.
 %
 \subsection{Functional extensionality}
 \label{sec:functional-extensionality}%
 Consider the functions:
 %
-\begin{multicols}{2}
+\begin{align*}%
-  \noindent
+\var{zeroLeft}  & \defeq \lambda\; (n \tp \bN) \to (0 + n \tp \bN) \\
-  \begin{equation*}
+\var{zeroRight} & \defeq \lambda\; (n \tp \bN) \to (n + 0 \tp \bN)
-    f \defeq (n \tp \bN) \mto (0 + n \tp \bN)
+\end{align*}%
-  \end{equation*}
-  \begin{equation*}
-    g \defeq (n \tp \bN) \mto (n + 0 \tp \bN)
-  \end{equation*}
-\end{multicols}
 %
-$n + 0$ is \nomen{definitionally} equal to $n$, which we write as $n + 0 = n$.
+The term $n + 0$ is \nomenindex{definitionally} equal to $n$, which we
-This is also called \nomen{judgmental} equality. We call it definitional
+write as $n + 0 = n$. This is also called \nomenindex{judgmental
-equality because the \emph{equality} arises from the \emph{definition} of $+$
+  equality}.  We call it definitional equality because the
-which is:
+\emph{equality} arises from the \emph{definition} of $+$ which is:
 %
 \begin{align*}
   +             & \tp \bN \to \bN \to \bN      \\
@@ -29,166 +90,181 @@ which is:
   n + (\suc{m}) & \defeq \suc{(n + m)}
 \end{align*}
 %
-Note that $0 + n$ is \emph{not} definitionally equal to $n$. $0 + n$ is in
+Note that $0 + n$ is \emph{not} definitionally equal to $n$. This is
-normal form. I.e.; there is no rule for $+$ whose left-hand-side matches this
+because $0 + n$ is in normal form. I.e.\ there is no rule for $+$
-expression. We \emph{do}, however, have that they are \nomen{propositionally}
+whose left hand side matches this expression. We do however have that
-equal, which we write as $n + 0 \equiv n$. Propositional equality means that
+they are \nomen{propositionally}{propositional equality} equal, which
-there is a proof that exhibits this relation. Since equality is a transitive
+we write as $n \equiv n + 0$. Propositional equality means that there
-relation we have that $n + 0 \equiv 0 + n$.
+is a proof that exhibits this relation. We can do induction over $n$
-
+to prove this:
-Unfortunately we don't have $f \equiv g$.\footnote{Actually showing this is
-outside the scope of this text. Essentially it would involve giving a model
-for our type theory that validates all our axioms but where $f \equiv g$ is
-not true.} There is no way to construct a proof asserting the obvious
-equivalence of $f$ and $g$ -- even though we can prove them equal for all
-points. This is exactly the notion of equality of functions that we are
-interested in; that they are equal for all inputs. We call this
-\nomen{point-wise equality}, where the \emph{points} of a function refers
-to its arguments.
-
-In the context of category theory functional extensionality is e.g. needed to
-show that representable functors are indeed functors. The representable functor
-for a category $\bC$ and a fixed object in $A \in \bC$ is defined to be:
 %
-\begin{align*}
+\begin{align}
-\fmap \defeq X \mto \Hom_{\bC}(A, X)
+\label{eq:zrn}
-\end{align*}
+\begin{split}
+\var{zrn}\                & \tp    ∀ n → n ≡ \var{zeroRight}\ n \\
+\var{zrn}\ \var{zero}     & \defeq \var{refl} \\
+\var{zrn}\ (\var{suc}\ n) & \defeq \var{cong}\ \var{suc}\ (\var{zrn}\ n)
+\end{split}
+\end{align}
 %
-The proof obligation that this satisfies the identity law of functors
+This show that zero is a right neutral element hence the name $\var{zrn}$.
-($\fmap\ \idFun \equiv \idFun$) thus becomes:
+Since equality is a transitive relation we have that $\forall n \to
-%
+\var{zeroLeft}\ n \equiv \var{zeroRight}\ n$. Unfortunately we don't
-\begin{align*}
+have $\var{zeroLeft} \equiv \var{zeroRight}$. There is no way to
-\Hom(A, \idFun_{\bX}) = (g \mto \idFun \comp g) \equiv \idFun_{\Sets}
+construct a proof asserting the obvious equivalence of
-\end{align*}
+$\var{zeroLeft}$ and $\var{zeroRight}$. Actually showing this is
-%
+outside the scope of this text. Essentially it would involve giving a
-One needs functional extensionality to ``go under'' the function arrow and apply
+model for our type theory that validates all our axioms but where
-the (left) identity law of the underlying category to prove $\idFun \comp g
+$\var{zeroLeft} \equiv \var{zeroRight}$ is not true. We cannot show
-\equiv g$ and thus close the goal.
+that they are equal even though we can prove them equal for all
+points. For functions this is exactly the notion of equality that we
+are interested in: Functions are considered equal when they are equal
+for all inputs. This is called \nomenindex{pointwise equality}, where
+the \emph{points} of a function refer to its arguments.
 %
 \subsection{Equality of isomorphic types}
 %
-Let $\top$ denote the unit type -- a type with a single constructor. In the
+Let $\top$ denote the unit type -- a type with a single constructor.
-propositions-as-types interpretation of type theory $\top$ is the proposition
+In the propositions as types interpretation of type theory $\top$ is
-that is always true. The type $A \x \top$ and $A$ has an element for each $a :
+the proposition that is always true. The type $A \x \top$ and $A$ has
-A$. So in a sense they have the same shape (Greek; \nomen{isomorphic}). The
+an element for each $a \tp A$. So in a sense they have the same shape
-second element of the pair does not add any ``interesting information''. It can
+(Greek;
-be useful to identify such types. In fact, it is quite commonplace in
+\nomenindex{isomorphic}). The second element of the pair does not
-mathematics. Say we look at a set $\{x \mid \phi\ x \land \psi\ x\}$ and somehow
+add any ``interesting information''. It can be useful to identify such
-conclude that $\psi\ x \equiv \top$ for all $x$. A mathematician would
+types. In fact, it is quite commonplace in mathematics. Say we look at
-immediately conclude $\{x \mid \phi\ x \land \psi\ x\} \equiv \{x \mid
+a set $\{x \mid \phi\ x \land \psi\ x\}$ and somehow conclude that
-\phi\ x\}$ without thinking twice. Unfortunately such an identification can not
+$\psi\ x \equiv \top$ for all $x$. A mathematician would immediately
+conclude $\{x \mid \phi\ x \land \psi\ x\} \equiv \{x \mid \phi\ x\}$
+without thinking twice. Unfortunately such an identification can not
 be performed in ITT.
 
 More specifically what we are interested in is a way of identifying
-\nomen{equivalent} types. I will return to the definition of equivalence later
+\nomenindex{equivalent} types. I will return to the definition of
-in section \S\ref{sec:equiv}, but for now it is sufficient to think of an
+equivalence later in section \S\ref{sec:equiv}, but for now it is
-equivalence as a one-to-one correspondence. We write $A \simeq B$ to assert that
+sufficient to think of an equivalence as a one-to-one correspondence.
-$A$ and $B$ are equivalent types. The principle of univalence says that:
+We write $A \simeq B$ to assert that $A$ and $B$ are equivalent types.
+The principle of univalence says that:
 %
 $$\mathit{univalence} \tp (A \simeq B) \simeq (A \equiv B)$$
 %
 In particular this allows us to construct an equality from an equivalence
-($\mathit{ua} \tp (A \simeq B) \to (A \equiv B)$) and vice-versa.
+%
+$$\mathit{ua} \tp (A \simeq B) \to (A \equiv B)$$
+%
+and vice versa.
 
 \section{Formalizing Category Theory}
 %
-The above examples serve to illustrate a limitation of ITT. One case where these
+The above examples serve to illustrate a limitation of ITT. One case
-limitations are particularly prohibitive is in the study of Category Theory. At
+where these limitations are particularly prohibitive is in the study
-a glance category theory can be described as ``the mathematical study of
+of Category Theory. At a glance category theory can be described as
-(abstract) algebras of functions'' (\cite{awodey-2006}). By that token
+``the mathematical study of (abstract) algebras of functions''
-functional extensionality is particularly useful for formulating Category
+(\cite{awodey-2006}). By that token functional extensionality is
-Theory. In Category theory it is also common to identify isomorphic structures
+particularly useful for formulating Category Theory. In Category
-and univalence gives us a way to make this notion precise. In fact we can
+theory it is also commonplace to identify isomorphic structures and
-formulate this requirement within our formulation of categories by requiring the
+univalence gives us a way to make this notion precise. In fact we can
-\emph{categories} themselves to be univalent as we shall see.
+formulate this requirement within our formulation of categories by
+requiring the \emph{categories} themselves to be univalent as we shall
+see in \S\ref{sec:univalence}.
 
 \section{Context}
 \label{sec:context}
 %
 The idea of formalizing Category Theory in proof assistants is not new. There
-are a multitude of these available online. Just as a first reference see this
+are a multitude of these available online. Notably:
-question on Math Overflow: \cite{mo-formalizations}. Notably these
-implementations of category theory in Agda:
 %
 \begin{itemize}
 \item
+  A formalization in Agda using the setoid approach:
   \url{https://github.com/copumpkin/categories}
-
-  A formalization in Agda using the setoid approach
 \item
+  A formalization in Agda with univalence and functional
+  extensionality as postulates:
   \url{https://github.com/pcapriotti/agda-categories}
-
-  A formalization in Agda with univalence and functional extensionality as
-  postulates.
 \item
+  A formalization in Coq in the homotopic setting:
   \url{https://github.com/HoTT/HoTT/tree/master/theories/Categories}
-
-  A formalization in Coq in the homotopic setting
 \item
+  A formalization in \emph{CubicalTT} -- a language designed for
+  cubical type theory. Formalizes many different things, but only a
+  few concepts from category theory:
   \url{https://github.com/mortberg/cubicaltt}
-
-  A formalization in CubicalTT - a language designed for cubical-type-theory.
-  Formalizes many different things, but only a few concepts from category
-  theory.
-
 \end{itemize}
 %
 The contribution of this thesis is to explore how working in a cubical setting
 will make it possible to prove more things and to reuse proofs and to try and
-compare some aspects of this formalization with the existing ones.\TODO{How can
+compare some aspects of this formalization with the existing ones.
-  I live up to this?}
 
-There are alternative approaches to working in a cubical setting where one can
+There are alternative approaches to working in a cubical setting where
-still have univalence and functional extensionality. One option is to postulate
+one can still have univalence and functional extensionality. One
-these as axioms. This approach, however, has other shortcomings, e.g.; you lose
+option is to postulate these as axioms. This approach, however, has
-\nomen{canonicity} (\TODO{Pageno!} \cite{huber-2016}). Canonicity means that any
+other shortcomings, e.g. you lose \nomenindex{canonicity}
-well-typed term evaluates to a \emph{canonical} form. For example for a closed
+(\cite[p. 3]{huber-2016}).
-term $e \tp \bN$ it will be the case that $e$ reduces to $n$ applications of
-$\mathit{suc}$ to $0$ for some $n$; $e = \mathit{suc}^n\ 0$. Without canonicity
-terms in the language can get ``stuck'' -- meaning that they do not reduce to a
-canonical form.
 
-Another approach is to use the \emph{setoid interpretation} of type theory
+Another approach is to use the \emph{setoid interpretation} of type
-(\cite{hofmann-1995,huber-2016}). With this approach one works with
+theory (\cite{hofmann-1995,huber-2016}). With this approach one works
-\nomen{extensional sets} $(X, \sim)$, that is a type $X \tp \MCU$ and an
+with \nomenindex{extensional sets} $(X, \sim)$. That is a type $X \tp
-equivalence relation $\sim \tp X \to X \to \MCU$ on that type. Under the setoid
+\MCU$ and an equivalence relation $\sim\ \tp X \to X \to \MCU$ on that
-interpretation the equivalence relation serve as a sort of ``local''
+type. Under the setoid interpretation the equivalence relation serve
-propositional equality. This approach has other drawbacks; it does not satisfy
+as a sort of ``local'' propositional equality. Since the developer
-all propositional equalities of type theory (\TODO{Citation needed}), is
+gets to pick this relation it is not a~priori a congruence
-cumbersome to work with in practice (\cite[p. 4]{huber-2016}) and makes
+relation. So this must be verified manually by the developer.
-equational proofs less reusable since equational proofs $a \sim_{X} b$ are
+Furthermore, functions between different setoids must be shown to be
-inherently `local' to the extensional set $(X , \sim)$.
+setoid homomorphism, that is; they preserve the relation.
+
+This approach has other drawbacks; it does not satisfy all
+propositional equalities of type theory a\~priori. That is, the
+developer must manually show that e.g.\ the relation is a congruence.
+Equational proofs $a \sim_{X} b$ are in some sense `local' to the
+extensional set $(X , \sim)$. To e.g.\ prove that $x ∼ y → f\ x ∼
+f\ y$ for some function $f \tp A → B$ between two extensional sets $A$
+and $B$ it must be shown that $f$ is a groupoid homomorphism. This
+makes it very cumbersome to work with in practice (\cite[p.
+  4]{huber-2016}).
 
 \section{Conventions}
-\TODO{Talk a bit about terminology. Find a good place to stuff this little
+In the remainder of this paper I will use the term \nomenindex{Type}
-  section.}
+to describe -- well -- types. Thereby departing from the notation in
+Agda where the keyword \texttt{Set} refers to types.  \nomenindex{Set}
+on the other hand shall refer to the homotopical notion of a set. I
+will also leave all universe levels implicit. This of course does not
+mean that a statement such as $\MCU \tp \MCU$ means that we have
+type-in-type but rather that the arguments to the universes are
+implicit.
 
-In the remainder of this paper I will use the term \nomen{Type} to describe --
+And I use the term
-well, types. Thereby diverging from the notation in Agda where the keyword
+\nomenindex{arrow} to refer to morphisms in a category,
-\texttt{Set} refers to types. \nomen{Set} on the other hand shall refer to the
+whereas the terms
-homotopical notion of a set. I will also leave all universe levels implicit.
+\nomenindex{morphism},
+\nomenindex{map} or
+\nomenindex{function}
+shall be reserved for talking about type theoretic functions; i.e.
+functions in Agda.
 
-And I use the term \nomen{arrow} to refer to morphisms in a category, whereas
+As already noted $\defeq$ will be used for introducing definitions $=$
-the terms morphism, map or function shall be reserved for talking about
+will be used to for judgmental equality and $\equiv$ will be used for
-type-theoretic functions; i.e. functions in Agda.
+propositional equality.
-
-$\defeq$ will be used for introducing definitions. $=$ will be used to for
-judgmental equality and $\equiv$ will be used for propositional equality.
 
 All this is summarized in the following table:
-
+%
+\begin{samepage}
 \begin{center}
 \begin{tabular}{ c c c }
 Name & Agda & Notation \\
 \hline
-\nomen{Type}            & \texttt{Set}         & $\Type$            \\
+
-\nomen{Set}             & \texttt{Σ Set IsSet} & $\Set$             \\
+\varindex{Type}            & \texttt{Set}         & $\Type$            \\
+
+\varindex{Set}             & \texttt{Σ Set IsSet} & $\Set$             \\
 Function, morphism, map & \texttt{A → B}       & $A → B$            \\
 Dependent- ditto        & \texttt{(a : A) → B} & $∏_{a \tp A} B$  \\
-\nomen{Arrow}           & \texttt{Arrow A B}   & $\Arrow\ A\ B$     \\
+
-\nomen{Object}          & \texttt{C.Object}    & $̱ℂ.Object$     \\
+\varindex{Arrow}           & \texttt{Arrow A B}   & $\Arrow\ A\ B$     \\
+
+\varindex{Object}          & \texttt{C.Object}    & $̱ℂ.Object$     \\
 Definition              & \texttt{=}           & $̱\defeq$       \\
 Judgmental equality     & \null                & $̱=$            \\
 Propositional equality  & \null                & $̱\equiv$
 \end{tabular}
 \end{center}
+\end{samepage}

doc/macros.tex

@@ -9,15 +9,15 @@
 %% Alternatively:
 %% \newcommand{\defeq}{≔}
 \newcommand{\bN}{\mathbb{N}}
-\newcommand{\bC}{\mathbb{C}}
+\newcommand{\bC}{ℂ}
-\newcommand{\bX}{\mathbb{X}}
+\newcommand{\bD}{𝔻}
+\newcommand{\bX}{𝕏}
 % \newcommand{\to}{\rightarrow}
 %% \newcommand{\mto}{\mapsto}
 \newcommand{\mto}{\rightarrow}
 \newcommand{\UU}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}\xspace}
 \let\type\UU
 \newcommand{\MCU}{\UU}
-\newcommand{\nomen}[1]{\emph{#1}}
 \newcommand{\todo}[1]{\textit{#1}}
 \newcommand{\comp}{\circ}
 \newcommand{\x}{\times}
@@ -33,7 +33,9 @@
 }
 \makeatother
 \newcommand{\var}[1]{\ensuremath{\mathit{#1}}}
-\newcommand{\varindex}[1]{\ensuremath{\mathit{#1}}\index{#1}}
+\newcommand{\varindex}[1]{\ensuremath{\var{#1}}\index{$\var{#1}$}}
+\newcommand{\nomen}[2]{\emph{#1}\index{#2}}
+\newcommand{\nomenindex}[1]{\nomen{#1}{#1}}
 
 \newcommand{\Hom}{\varindex{Hom}}
 \newcommand{\fmap}{\varindex{fmap}}
@@ -71,13 +73,17 @@
 \newcommand\isequiv{\varindex{isequiv}}
 \newcommand\qinv{\varindex{qinv}}
 \newcommand\fiber{\varindex{fiber}}
-\newcommand\shuffle{\varindex{shuffle}}
+\newcommand\shufflef{\varindex{shuffle}}
 \newcommand\Univalent{\varindex{Univalent}}
 \newcommand\refl{\varindex{refl}}
 \newcommand\isoToId{\varindex{isoToId}}
 \newcommand\Isomorphism{\varindex{Isomorphism}}
 \newcommand\rrr{\ggg}
-\newcommand\fish{\mathrel{\wideoverbar{\rrr}}}
+%% \newcommand\fish{\mathbin{↣}}
+%% \newcommand\fish{\mathbin{⤅}}
+\newcommand\fish{\mathbin{⤇}}
+%% \newcommand\fish{\mathbin{⤜}}
+%% \newcommand\fish{\mathrel{\wideoverbar{\rrr}}}
 \newcommand\fst{\varindex{fst}}
 \newcommand\snd{\varindex{snd}}
 \newcommand\Path{\varindex{Path}}
@@ -86,9 +92,39 @@
 \newcommand*{\QED}{\hfill\ensuremath{\square}}%
 \newcommand\uexists{\exists!}
 \newcommand\Arrow{\varindex{Arrow}}
+\newcommand\embellish[1]{\widehat{#1}}
+\newcommand\nattrans[1]{\embellish{#1}}
+\newcommand\functor[1]{\embellish{#1}}
 \newcommand\NTsym{\varindex{NT}}
 \newcommand\NT[2]{\NTsym\ #1\ #2}
 \newcommand\Endo[1]{\varindex{Endo}\ #1}
-\newcommand\EndoR{\mathcal{R}}
+\newcommand\EndoR{\functor{\mathcal{R}}}
+\newcommand\omapR{\mathcal{R}}
+\newcommand\omapF{\mathcal{F}}
+\newcommand\omapG{\mathcal{G}}
+\newcommand\FunF{\functor{\omapF}}
+\newcommand\FunG{\functor{\omapG}}
 \newcommand\funExt{\varindex{funExt}}
-\newcommand{\suc}[1]{\mathit{suc}\ #1}
+\newcommand{\suc}[1]{\varindex{suc}\ #1}
+\newcommand{\trans}{\varindex{trans}}
+\newcommand{\toKleisli}{\varindex{toKleisli}}
+\newcommand{\toMonoidal}{\varindex{toMonoidal}}
+\newcommand\pairA{\mathcal{A}}
+\newcommand\pairB{\mathcal{B}}
+\newcommand{\joinNT}{\functor{\varindex{join}}}
+\newcommand{\pureNT}{\functor{\varindex{pure}}}
+\newcommand{\hrefsymb}[2]{\href{#1}{#2 \ExternalLink}}
+\newcommand{\sourcebasepath}{http://web.student.chalmers.se/\textasciitilde hanghj/cat/doc/html/}
+\newcommand{\docbasepath}{https://github.com/fredefox/cat/}
+\newcommand{\sourcelink}[1]{\hrefsymb
+    {\sourcebasepath#1.html}
+    {\texttt{#1}}
+  }
+\newcommand{\gitlink}{\hrefsymb{\docbasepath}{\texttt{\docbasepath}}}
+\newcommand{\doclink}{\hrefsymb{\sourcebasepath}{\texttt{\sourcebasepath}}}
+\newcommand{\clll}{\mathrel{\bC.\mathord{\lll}}}
+\newcommand{\dlll}{\mathrel{\bD.\mathord{\lll}}}
+\newcommand\coe{\varindex{coe}}
+\newcommand\Monoidal{\varindex{Monoidal}}
+\newcommand\Kleisli{\varindex{Kleisli}}
+\newcommand\I{\mathds{I}}

doc/main.tex

@@ -1,4 +1,5 @@
 \documentclass[a4paper]{report}
+%% \documentclass[tightpage]{preview}
 %% \documentclass[compact,a4paper]{article}
 
 \input{packages.tex}
@@ -49,6 +50,7 @@
 \myfrontmatter
 \maketitle
 \input{abstract.tex}
+\input{acknowledgements.tex}
 \tableofcontents
 \mainmatter
 %
@@ -65,7 +67,8 @@
 \begin{appendices}
 \setcounter{page}{1}
 \pagenumbering{roman}
-\input{sources.tex}
+\input{appendix/abstract-funext.tex}
+%% \input{sources.tex}
 %% \input{planning.tex}
 %% \input{halftime.tex}
 \end{appendices}

doc/packages.tex

@@ -3,21 +3,27 @@
 \usepackage{natbib}
 \bibliographystyle{plain}
 
+\usepackage{xcolor}
+%% \mode<report>{
 \usepackage[
-  hidelinks,
+  %% hidelinks,
   pdfusetitle,
   pdfsubject={category theory},
   pdfkeywords={type theory, homotopy theory, category theory, agda}]
   {hyperref}
-
+%% }
+%% \definecolor{darkorange}{HTML}{ff8c00}
+%% \hypersetup{allbordercolors={darkorange}}
+\hypersetup{hidelinks}
 \usepackage{graphicx}
+%% \usepackage[active,tightpage]{preview}
 
 \usepackage{parskip}
 \usepackage{multicol}
 \usepackage{amssymb,amsmath,amsthm,stmaryrd,mathrsfs,wasysym}
 \usepackage[toc,page]{appendix}
 \usepackage{xspace}
-\usepackage[a4paper,top=3cm,bottom=3cm]{geometry}
+\usepackage[paper=a4paper,top=3cm,bottom=3cm]{geometry}
 \usepackage{makeidx}
 \makeindex
 % \setlength{\parskip}{10pt}
@@ -78,15 +84,15 @@
 \newunicodechar{∨}{\textfallback{∨}}
 \newunicodechar{∧}{\textfallback{∧}}
 \newunicodechar{⊔}{\textfallback{⊔}}
-\newunicodechar{≊}{\textfallback{≊}}
+%% \newunicodechar{≊}{\textfallback{≊}}
 \newunicodechar{∈}{\textfallback{∈}}
 \newunicodechar{ℂ}{\textfallback{ℂ}}
 \newunicodechar{∘}{\textfallback{∘}}
 \newunicodechar{⟨}{\textfallback{⟨}}
 \newunicodechar{⟩}{\textfallback{⟩}}
 \newunicodechar{∎}{\textfallback{∎}}
-\newunicodechar{𝒜}{\textfallback{?}}
+%% \newunicodechar{𝒜}{\textfallback{𝒜}}
-\newunicodechar{ℬ}{\textfallback{?}}
+%% \newunicodechar{ℬ}{\textfallback{ℬ}}
 %% \newunicodechar{≊}{\textfallback{≊}}
 \makeatletter
 \newcommand*{\rom}[1]{\expandafter\@slowroman\romannumeral #1@}
@@ -113,3 +119,26 @@
    }
 
 \makeatother
+\usepackage{xspace}
+\usepackage{tikz}
+\newcommand{\ExternalLink}{%
+    \tikz[x=1.2ex, y=1.2ex, baseline=-0.05ex]{% 
+        \begin{scope}[x=1ex, y=1ex]
+            \clip (-0.1,-0.1) 
+                --++ (-0, 1.2) 
+                --++ (0.6, 0) 
+                --++ (0, -0.6) 
+                --++ (0.6, 0) 
+                --++ (0, -1);
+            \path[draw, 
+                line width = 0.5, 
+                rounded corners=0.5] 
+                (0,0) rectangle (1,1);
+        \end{scope}
+        \path[draw, line width = 0.5] (0.5, 0.5) 
+            -- (1, 1);
+        \path[draw, line width = 0.5] (0.6, 1) 
+            -- (1, 1) -- (1, 0.6);
+        }
+    }
+\usepackage{ dsfont }

doc/presentation.tex

@@ -0,0 +1,653 @@
+\documentclass[a4paper,handout]{beamer}
+\usetheme{metropolis}
+\beamertemplatenavigationsymbolsempty
+%% \usecolortheme[named=seagull]{structure}
+
+\input{packages.tex}
+\input{macros.tex}
+\title[Univalent Categories]{Univalent Categories\\ \footnotesize A formalization of category theory in Cubical Agda}
+\newcommand{\myname}{Frederik Hangh{\o}j Iversen}
+\author[\myname]{
+  \myname\\
+  \footnotesize Supervisors: Thierry Coquand, Andrea Vezzosi\\
+  Examiner: Andreas Abel
+}
+\institute{Chalmers University of Technology}
+
+\begin{document}
+\frame{\titlepage}
+
+\begin{frame}
+  \frametitle{Motivating example}
+  \framesubtitle{Functional extensionality}
+  Consider the functions
+  \begin{align*}
+    \var{zeroLeft}  & ≜ \lambda (n \tp \bN) \mto (0 + n \tp \bN) \\
+    \var{zeroRight} & ≜ \lambda (n \tp \bN) \mto (n + 0 \tp \bN)
+  \end{align*}
+  \pause
+  We have
+  %
+  $$
+  ∏_{n \tp \bN} \var{zeroLeft}\ n ≡ \var{zeroRight}\ n
+  $$
+  %
+  \pause
+  But not
+  %
+  $$
+  \var{zeroLeft} ≡ \var{zeroRight}
+  $$
+  %
+  \pause
+  We need
+  %
+  $$
+  \funExt \tp ∏_{a \tp A} f\ a ≡ g\ a → f ≡ g
+  $$
+\end{frame}
+\begin{frame}
+  \frametitle{Motivating example}
+  \framesubtitle{Univalence}
+  Consider the set
+  $\{x \mid \phi\ x \land \psi\ x\}$
+  \pause
+
+  If we show $∀ x . \psi\ x ≡ \top$
+  then we want to conclude
+  $\{x \mid \phi\ x \land \psi\ x\} ≡ \{x \mid \phi\ x\}$
+  \pause
+
+  We need univalence:
+  $$(A ≃ B) ≃ (A ≡ B)$$
+  \pause
+  %
+  We will return to $≃$, but for now think of it as an
+  isomorphism, so it induces maps:
+  \begin{align*}
+    \var{toPath}  & \tp (A ≃ B) → (A ≡ B) \\
+    \var{toEquiv} & \tp (A ≡ B) → (A ≃ B)
+  \end{align*}
+\end{frame}
+\begin{frame}
+  \frametitle{Paths}
+  \framesubtitle{Definition}
+  Heterogeneous paths
+  \begin{equation*}
+    \Path \tp (P \tp I → \MCU) → P\ 0 → P\ 1 → \MCU
+  \end{equation*}
+  \pause
+  For $P \tp I → \MCU$, $A \tp \MCU$ and $a_0, a_1 \tp A$
+  inhabitants of $\Path\ P\ a_0\ a_1$ are like functions
+  %
+  $$
+  p \tp ∏_{i \tp I} P\ i
+  $$
+  %
+  Which satisfy $p\ 0 & = a_0$ and $p\ 1 & = a_1$
+  \pause
+
+  Homogenous paths
+  $$
+  a_0 ≡ a_1 ≜ \Path\ (\var{const}\ A)\ a_0\ a_1
+  $$
+\end{frame}
+\begin{frame}
+  \frametitle{Paths}
+  \framesubtitle{Functional extenstionality}
+  $$
+  \funExt & \tp ∏_{a \tp A} f\ a ≡ g\ a → f ≡ g
+  $$
+  \pause
+  $$
+  \funExt\ p ≜ λ i\ a → p\ a\ i
+  $$
+  \pause
+  $$
+  \funExt\ (\var{const}\ \refl)
+  \tp
+  \var{zeroLeft} ≡ \var{zeroRight}
+  $$
+\end{frame}
+\begin{frame}
+  \frametitle{Paths}
+  \framesubtitle{Homotopy levels}
+  \begin{align*}
+    & \isContr    && \tp    \MCU → \MCU \\
+    & \isContr\ A && ≜ ∑_{c \tp A} ∏_{a \tp A} a ≡ c
+  \end{align*}
+  \pause
+  \begin{align*}
+    & \isProp    && \tp \MCU → \MCU \\
+    & \isProp\ A && ≜ ∏_{a_0, a_1 \tp A} a_0 ≡ a_1
+  \end{align*}
+  \pause
+  \begin{align*}
+    & \isSet    && \tp \MCU → \MCU \\
+    & \isSet\ A && ≜ ∏_{a_0, a_1 \tp A} \isProp\ (a_0 ≡ a_1)
+  \end{align*}
+  \begin{align*}
+    & \isGroupoid    && \tp \MCU → \MCU \\
+    & \isGroupoid\ A && ≜ ∏_{a_0, a_1 \tp A} \isSet\ (a_0 ≡ a_1)
+  \end{align*}
+\end{frame}
+\begin{frame}
+  \frametitle{Paths}
+  \framesubtitle{A few lemmas}
+  Let $D$ be a type-family:
+  $$
+  D \tp ∏_{b \tp A} ∏_{p \tp a ≡ b} \MCU
+  $$
+  %
+  \pause
+  And $d$ and in inhabitant of $D$ at $\refl$:
+  %
+  $$
+  d \tp D\ a\ \refl
+  $$
+  %
+  \pause
+  We then have the function:
+  %
+  $$
+    \pathJ\ D\ d \tp ∏_{b \tp A} ∏_{p \tp a ≡ b} D\ b\ p
+  $$
+\end{frame}
+\begin{frame}
+  \frametitle{Paths}
+  \framesubtitle{A few lemmas}
+  Given
+  \begin{align*}
+    A           & \tp \MCU \\
+    P           & \tp A → \MCU \\
+    \var{propP} & \tp ∏_{x \tp A} \isProp\ (P\ x) \\
+    p           & \tp a_0 ≡ a_1 \\
+    p_0         & \tp P\ a_0 \\
+    p_1         & \tp P\ a_1
+  \end{align*}
+  %
+  We have
+  $$
+  \lemPropF\ \var{propP}\ p
+  \tp
+  \Path\ (\lambda\; i \mto P\ (p\ i))\ p_0\ p_1
+  $$
+  %
+\end{frame}
+\begin{frame}
+  \frametitle{Paths}
+  \framesubtitle{A few lemmas}
+  $∏$ preserves $\isProp$:
+  $$
+  \mathit{propPi}
+  \tp
+  \left(∏_{a \tp A} \isProp\ (P\ a)\right)
+  → \isProp\ \left(∏_{a \tp A} P\ a\right)
+  $$
+  \pause
+  $∑$ preserves $\isProp$:
+  $$
+  \mathit{propSig} \tp \isProp\ A → \left(∏_{a \tp A} \isProp\ (P\ a)\right) → \isProp\ \left(∑_{a \tp A} P\ a\right)
+  $$
+\end{frame}
+\begin{frame}
+  \frametitle{Pre categories}
+  \framesubtitle{Definition}
+  Data:
+  \begin{align*}
+    \Object   & \tp \Type \\
+    \Arrow    & \tp \Object → \Object → \Type \\
+    \identity & \tp \Arrow\ A\ A \\
+    \lll      & \tp \Arrow\ B\ C → \Arrow\ A\ B → \Arrow\ A\ C
+  \end{align*}
+  %
+  \pause
+  Laws:
+  %
+  $$
+  h \lll (g \lll f) ≡ (h \lll g) \lll f
+  $$
+  $$
+  (\identity \lll f ≡ f)
+  ×
+  (f \lll \identity ≡ f)
+  $$
+  \pause
+  1-categories:
+  $$
+  \isSet\ (\Arrow\ A\ B)
+  $$
+\end{frame}
+\begin{frame}
+  \frametitle{Pre categories}
+  \framesubtitle{Propositionality}
+  $$
+  \isProp\ \left( (\identity \comp f ≡ f) × (f \comp \identity ≡ f) \right)
+  $$
+  \pause
+  \begin{align*}
+    \isProp\ \IsPreCategory
+  \end{align*}
+  \pause
+  \begin{align*}
+    \var{isAssociative} & \tp \var{IsAssociative}\\
+    \isIdentity    & \tp \var{IsIdentity}\\
+    \var{arrowsAreSets} & \tp \var{ArrowsAreSets}
+  \end{align*}
+  \pause
+  \begin{align*}
+    & \var{propIsAssociative} && a.\var{isAssociative}\
+    && b.\var{isAssociative} && i  \\
+    & \propIsIdentity    && a.\isIdentity\
+    && b.\isIdentity    && i  \\
+    & \var{propArrowsAreSets} && a.\var{arrowsAreSets}\
+    && b.\var{arrowsAreSets} && i
+  \end{align*}
+\end{frame}
+\begin{frame}
+  \frametitle{Categories}
+  \framesubtitle{Univalence}
+  \begin{align*}
+    \var{IsIdentity} & ≜
+    ∏_{A\ B \tp \Object} ∏_{f \tp \Arrow\ A\ B} \phi\ f
+    %% \\
+    %%   & \mathrel{\ } \identity \lll f ≡ f × f \lll \identity ≡ f
+  \end{align*}
+  where
+  $$
+  \phi\ f ≜ \identity
+  ( \lll f ≡ f )
+  ×
+  ( f \lll \identity ≡ f)
+  $$
+  \pause
+  Let $\approxeq$ denote ismorphism of objects. We can then construct
+  the identity isomorphism in any category:
+  $$
+  \identity , \identity , \var{isIdentity} \tp A \approxeq A
+  $$
+  \pause
+  Likewise since paths are substitutive we can promote a path to an isomorphism:
+  $$
+  \idToIso \tp A ≡ B → A ≊ B
+  $$
+  \pause
+  For a category to be univalent we require this to be an equivalence:
+  %
+  $$
+  \isEquiv\ (A ≡ B)\ (A \approxeq B)\ \idToIso
+  $$
+  %
+\end{frame}
+\begin{frame}
+  \frametitle{Categories}
+  \framesubtitle{Univalence, cont'd}
+  $$\isEquiv\ (A ≡ B)\ (A \approxeq B)\ \idToIso$$
+  \pause%
+  $$(A ≡ B) ≃ (A \approxeq B)$$
+  \pause%
+  $$(A ≡ B) ≅ (A \approxeq B)$$
+  \pause%
+  Name the above maps:
+  $$\idToIso \tp A ≡ B → A ≊ B$$
+  %
+  $$\isoToId \tp (A \approxeq B) → (A ≡ B)$$
+\end{frame}
+\begin{frame}
+  \frametitle{Categories}
+  \framesubtitle{Propositionality}
+  $$
+  \isProp\ \IsCategory = ∏_{a, b \tp \IsCategory} a ≡ b
+  $$
+  \pause
+  So, for
+  $$
+  a\ b \tp \IsCategory
+  $$
+  the proof obligation is the pair:
+  %
+  \begin{align*}
+    p & \tp a.\isPreCategory ≡ b.\isPreCategory \\
+    & \mathrel{\ } \Path\ (\lambda\; i → (p\ i).Univalent)\ a.\isPreCategory\ b.\isPreCategory
+  \end{align*}
+\end{frame}
+\begin{frame}
+  \frametitle{Categories}
+  \framesubtitle{Propositionality, cont'd}
+  First path given by:
+  $$
+  p
+  ≜
+  \var{propIsPreCategory}\ a\ b
+  \tp
+  a.\isPreCategory ≡ b.\isPreCategory
+  $$
+  \pause
+  Use $\lemPropF$ for the latter.
+  \pause
+  %
+  Univalence is indexed by an identity proof. So $A ≜
+  IsIdentity\ identity$ and $B ≜ \var{Univalent}$.
+  \pause
+  %
+  $$
+  \lemPropF\ \var{propUnivalent}\ p
+  $$
+\end{frame}
+
+\begin{frame}
+  \frametitle{Categories}
+  \framesubtitle{A theorem}
+  %
+  Let the isomorphism $(ι, \inv{ι}) \tp A \approxeq B$.
+  %
+  \pause
+  %
+  The isomorphism induces the path
+  %
+  $$
+  p ≜ \idToIso\ (\iota, \inv{\iota}) \tp A ≡ B
+  $$
+  %
+  \pause
+  and consequently an arrow:
+  %
+  $$
+  p_{\var{dom}} ≜ \congruence\ (λ x → \Arrow\ x\ X)\ p
+  \tp
+  \Arrow\ A\ X ≡ \Arrow\ B\ X
+  $$
+  %
+  \pause
+  The proposition is:
+  %
+  \begin{align}
+    \label{eq:coeDom}
+    \tag{$\var{coeDom}$}
+    ∏_{f \tp A → X}
+    \var{coe}\ p_{\var{dom}}\ f ≡ f \lll \inv{\iota}
+  \end{align}
+\end{frame}
+\begin{frame}
+  \frametitle{Categories}
+  \framesubtitle{A theorem, proof}
+  \begin{align*}
+    \var{coe}\ p_{\var{dom}}\ f
+    & ≡ f \lll \inv{(\idToIso\ p)} && \text{By path-induction} \\
+    & ≡ f \lll \inv{\iota}
+    && \text{$\idToIso$ and $\isoToId$ are inverses}\\
+  \end{align*}
+  \pause
+  %
+  Induction will be based at $A$. Let $\widetilde{B}$ and $\widetilde{p}
+  \tp A ≡ \widetilde{B}$ be given.
+  %
+  \pause
+  %
+  Define the family:
+  %
+  $$
+  D\ \widetilde{B}\ \widetilde{p} ≜
+  \var{coe}\ \widetilde{p}_{\var{dom}}\ f
+  ≡
+  f \lll \inv{(\idToIso\ \widetilde{p})}
+  $$
+  \pause
+  %
+  The base-case becomes:
+  $$
+  d \tp D\ A\ \refl =
+  \var{coe}\ \refl_{\var{dom}}\ f ≡ f \lll \inv{(\idToIso\ \refl)}
+  $$
+\end{frame}
+\begin{frame}
+  \frametitle{Categories}
+  \framesubtitle{A theorem, proof, cont'd}
+  $$
+  d \tp
+  \var{coe}\ \refl_{\var{dom}}\ f ≡ f \lll \inv{(\idToIso\ \refl)}
+  $$
+  \pause
+  \begin{align*}
+    \var{coe}\ \refl^*\ f
+    & ≡ f
+    && \text{$\refl$ is a neutral element for $\var{coe}$}\\
+    & ≡ f \lll \identity \\
+    & ≡ f \lll \var{subst}\ \refl\ \identity
+    && \text{$\refl$ is a neutral element for $\var{subst}$}\\
+    & ≡ f \lll \inv{(\idToIso\ \refl)}
+    && \text{By definition of $\idToIso$}\\
+  \end{align*}
+  \pause
+  In conclusion, the theorem is inhabited by:
+  $$
+  \label{eq:pathJ-example}
+  \pathJ\ D\ d\ B\ p
+  $$
+\end{frame}
+\begin{frame}
+  \frametitle{Span category} \framesubtitle{Definition} Given a base
+  category $\bC$ and two objects in this category $\pairA$ and $\pairB$
+  we can construct the \nomenindex{span category}:
+  %
+  \pause
+  Objects:
+  $$
+  ∑_{X \tp Object} \Arrow\ X\ \pairA × \Arrow\ X\ \pairB
+  $$
+  \pause
+  %
+  Arrows between objects $A ,\ a_{\pairA} ,\ a_{\pairB}$ and
+  $B ,\ b_{\pairA} ,\ b_{\pairB}$:
+  %
+  $$
+  ∑_{f \tp \Arrow\ A\ B}
+  b_{\pairA} \lll f ≡ a_{\pairA} ×
+  b_{\pairB} \lll f ≡ a_{\pairB}
+  $$
+\end{frame}
+\begin{frame}
+  \frametitle{Span category}
+  \framesubtitle{Univalence}
+  \begin{align*}
+    \label{eq:univ-0}
+    (X , x_{𝒜} , x_{ℬ}) ≡ (Y , y_{𝒜} , y_{ℬ})
+  \end{align*}
+  \begin{align*}
+    \label{eq:univ-1}
+    \begin{split}
+      p \tp & X ≡ Y \\
+      & \Path\ (λ i → \Arrow\ (p\ i)\ 𝒜)\ x_{𝒜}\ y_{𝒜} \\
+      & \Path\ (λ i → \Arrow\ (p\ i)\ ℬ)\ x_{ℬ}\ y_{ℬ}
+    \end{split}
+  \end{align*}
+  \begin{align*}
+    \begin{split}
+      \var{iso} \tp & X \approxeq Y \\
+      & \Path\ (λ i → \Arrow\ (\widetilde{p}\ i)\ 𝒜)\ x_{𝒜}\ y_{𝒜} \\
+      & \Path\ (λ i → \Arrow\ (\widetilde{p}\ i)\ ℬ)\ x_{ℬ}\ y_{ℬ}
+    \end{split}
+  \end{align*}
+  \begin{align*}
+    (X , x_{𝒜} , x_{ℬ}) ≊ (Y , y_{𝒜} , y_{ℬ})
+  \end{align*}
+\end{frame}
+\begin{frame}
+  \frametitle{Span category}
+  \framesubtitle{Univalence, proof}
+  %
+  \begin{align*}
+    %% (f, \inv{f}, \var{inv}_f, \var{inv}_{\inv{f}})
+    %% \tp
+    (X, x_{𝒜}, x_{ℬ}) \approxeq (Y, y_{𝒜}, y_{ℬ})
+    \to
+    \begin{split}
+      \var{iso} \tp & X \approxeq Y \\
+      & \Path\ (λ i → \Arrow\ (\widetilde{p}\ i)\ 𝒜)\ x_{𝒜}\ y_{𝒜} \\
+      & \Path\ (λ i → \Arrow\ (\widetilde{p}\ i)\ ℬ)\ x_{ℬ}\ y_{ℬ}
+    \end{split}
+  \end{align*}
+  \pause
+  %
+  Let $(f, \inv{f}, \var{inv}_f, \var{inv}_{\inv{f}})$ be an inhabitant
+  of the antecedent.\pause
+
+  Projecting out the first component gives us the isomorphism
+  %
+  $$
+  (\fst\ f, \fst\ \inv{f}
+  , \congruence\ \fst\ \var{inv}_f
+  , \congruence\ \fst\ \var{inv}_{\inv{f}}
+  )
+  \tp X \approxeq Y
+  $$
+  \pause
+  %
+  This gives rise to the following paths:
+  %
+  \begin{align*}
+    \begin{split}
+      \widetilde{p} & \tp X ≡ Y \\
+      \widetilde{p}_{𝒜} & \tp \Arrow\ X\ 𝒜 ≡ \Arrow\ Y\ 𝒜 \\
+    \end{split}
+  \end{align*}
+  %
+\end{frame}
+\begin{frame}
+  \frametitle{Span category}
+  \framesubtitle{Univalence, proof, cont'd}
+  It remains to construct:
+  %
+  \begin{align*}
+    \begin{split}
+      \label{eq:product-paths}
+      & \Path\ (λ i → \widetilde{p}_{𝒜}\ i)\ x_{𝒜}\ y_{𝒜}
+    \end{split}
+  \end{align*}
+  \pause
+  %
+  This is achieved with the following lemma:
+  %
+  \begin{align*}
+    ∏_{q \tp A ≡ B} \var{coe}\ q\ x_{𝒜} ≡ y_{𝒜}
+    →
+    \Path\ (λ i → q\ i)\ x_{𝒜}\ y_{𝒜}
+  \end{align*}
+  %
+  Which is used without proof.\pause
+
+  So the construction reduces to:
+  %
+  \begin{align*}
+    \var{coe}\ \widetilde{p}_{𝒜}\ x_{𝒜} ≡ y_{𝒜}
+  \end{align*}%
+  \pause%
+  This is proven with:
+  %
+  \begin{align*}
+    \var{coe}\ \widetilde{p}_{𝒜}\ x_{𝒜}
+    & ≡ x_{𝒜} \lll \fst\ \inv{f} && \text{\ref{eq:coeDom}} \\
+    & ≡ y_{𝒜} && \text{Property of span category}
+  \end{align*}
+\end{frame}
+\begin{frame}
+  \frametitle{Propositionality of products}
+  We have
+  %
+  $$
+  \isProp\ \var{Terminal}
+  $$\pause
+  %
+  We can show:
+  \begin{align*}
+    \var{Terminal} ≃ \var{Product}\ ℂ\ 𝒜\ ℬ
+  \end{align*}
+  \pause
+  And since equivalences preserve homotopy levels we get:
+  %
+  $$
+  \isProp\ \left(\var{Product}\ \bC\ 𝒜\ ℬ\right)
+  $$
+\end{frame}
+\begin{frame}
+  \frametitle{Monads}
+  \framesubtitle{Monoidal form}
+  %
+  \begin{align*}
+    \EndoR  & \tp \Endo ℂ \\
+    \pureNT
+    & \tp \NT{\EndoR^0}{\EndoR} \\
+    \joinNT
+    & \tp \NT{\EndoR^2}{\EndoR}
+  \end{align*}
+  \pause
+  %
+  Let $\fmap$ be the map on arrows of $\EndoR$. Likewise
+  $\pure$ and $\join$ are the maps of the natural transformations
+  $\pureNT$ and $\joinNT$ respectively.
+  %
+  \begin{align*}
+    \join \lll \fmap\ \join
+    & ≡ \join \lll \join \\
+    \join \lll \pure\           & ≡ \identity \\
+    \join \lll \fmap\     \pure & ≡ \identity
+  \end{align*}
+\end{frame}
+\begin{frame}
+  \frametitle{Monads}
+  \framesubtitle{Kleisli form}
+  %
+  \begin{align*}
+    \omapR & \tp \Object → \Object \\
+    \pure  & \tp % ∏_{X \tp Object}
+    \Arrow\ X\ (\omapR\ X) \\
+    \bind  & \tp
+    \Arrow\ X\ (\omapR\ Y)
+    \to
+    \Arrow\ (\omapR\ X)\ (\omapR\ Y)
+  \end{align*}\pause
+  %
+  \begin{align*}
+    \fish & \tp
+    \Arrow\ A\ (\omapR\ B)
+    →
+    \Arrow\ B\ (\omapR\ C)
+    →
+    \Arrow\ A\ (\omapR\ C) \\
+    f \fish g & ≜ f \rrr (\bind\ g)
+  \end{align*}
+  \pause
+  %
+  \begin{align*}
+    \label{eq:monad-kleisli-laws-0}
+    \bind\ \pure & ≡ \identity_{\omapR\ X} \\
+    \label{eq:monad-kleisli-laws-1}
+    \pure \fish f & ≡ f \\
+    \label{eq:monad-kleisli-laws-2}
+    (\bind\ f) \rrr (\bind\ g) & ≡ \bind\ (f \fish g)
+  \end{align*}
+\end{frame}
+\begin{frame}
+  \frametitle{Monads}
+  \framesubtitle{Equivalence}
+  In the monoidal formulation we can define $\bind$:
+  %
+  $$
+  \bind\ f ≜ \join \lll \fmap\ f
+  $$
+  \pause
+  %
+  And likewise in the Kleisli formulation we can define $\join$:
+  %
+  $$
+  \join ≜ \bind\ \identity
+  $$
+  \pause
+  The laws are logically equivalent. So we get:
+  %
+  $$
+  \var{Monoidal} ≃ \var{Kleisli}
+  $$
+  %
+\end{frame}
+\end{document}

doc/title.tex

@@ -0,0 +1,95 @@
+%% FRONTMATTER
+\frontmatter
+%% \newgeometry{top=3cm, bottom=3cm,left=2.25 cm, right=2.25cm}
+\begingroup
+\thispagestyle{empty}
+{\Huge\thetitle}\\[.5cm]
+{\Large A formalization of category theory in Cubical Agda}\\[6cm]
+\begin{center}
+\includegraphics[width=\linewidth,keepaspectratio]{isomorphism.png}
+\end{center}
+% Cover text
+\vfill
+%% \renewcommand{\familydefault}{\sfdefault} \normalfont % Set cover page font
+{\Large\theauthor}\\[.5cm]
+Master's thesis in Computer Science
+\endgroup
+%% \end{titlepage}
+
+
+% BACK OF COVER PAGE (BLANK PAGE)
+\newpage
+%% \newgeometry{a4paper}	% Temporarily change margins
+%% \restoregeometry
+\thispagestyle{empty}
+\null
+
+%% \begin{titlepage}
+
+% TITLE PAGE
+\newpage
+\thispagestyle{empty}
+\begin{center}
+	\textsc{\LARGE Master's thesis \the\year}\\[4cm]		% Report number is currently not in use
+	\textbf{\LARGE \thetitle} \\[1cm]
+	{\large \subtitle}\\[1cm]
+	{\large \theauthor}
+	
+	\vfill	
+	\centering
+	\includegraphics[width=0.2\pdfpagewidth]{logo_eng.pdf}
+  \vspace{5mm}
+	
+	\textsc{Department of Computer Science and Engineering}\\
+	\textsc{{\researchgroup}}\\
+	%Name of research group (if applicable)\\
+	\textsc{\institution} \\
+	\textsc{Gothenburg, Sweden \the\year}\\
+\end{center}
+
+
+% IMPRINT PAGE (BACK OF TITLE PAGE)
+\newpage
+\thispagestyle{plain}
+\textit{\thetitle}\\
+\subtitle\\
+\copyright\ \the\year ~ \textsc{\theauthor}
+\vspace{4.5cm}
+
+\setlength{\parskip}{0.5cm}
+\textbf{Author:}\\
+\theauthor\\
+\href{mailto:\authoremail>}{\texttt{<\authoremail>}}
+
+\textbf{Supervisor:}\\
+\supervisor\\
+\href{mailto:\supervisoremail>}{\texttt{<\supervisoremail>}}\\
+\supervisordepartment
+
+\textbf{Co-supervisor:}\\
+\cosupervisor\\
+\href{mailto:\cosupervisoremail>}{\texttt{<\cosupervisoremail>}}\\
+\cosupervisordepartment
+
+\textbf{Examiner:}\\
+\examiner\\
+\href{mailto:\examineremail>}{\texttt{<\examineremail>}}\\
+\examinerdepartment
+
+\vfill
+Master's Thesis \the\year\\	% Report number currently not in use
+\department\\
+%Division of Division name\\
+%Name of research group (if applicable)\\
+\institution\\
+SE-412 96 Gothenburg\\
+Telephone +46 31 772 1000 \setlength{\parskip}{0.5cm}\\
+% Caption for cover page figure if used, possibly with reference to further information in the report
+%% Cover: Wind visualization constructed in Matlab showing a surface of constant wind speed along with streamlines of the flow. \setlength{\parskip}{0.5cm}
+%Printed by [Name of printing company]\\
+Gothenburg, Sweden \the\year
+
+%% \restoregeometry
+%% \end{titlepage}
+
+\tableofcontents

libs/agda-stdlib

@@ -1 +1 @@
-Subproject commit 55ad461aa4fc6cf22e97812b7ff8128b3c7a902c
+Subproject commit 209626953d56294e9bd3d8892eda43b844b0edf9

src/Cat.agda

@@ -10,10 +10,11 @@ open import Cat.Category.NaturalTransformation
 open import Cat.Category.Yoneda
 open import Cat.Category.Monoid
 open import Cat.Category.Monad
-open        Cat.Category.Monad.Monoidal
+open import Cat.Category.Monad.Monoidal
-open        Cat.Category.Monad.Kleisli
+open import Cat.Category.Monad.Kleisli
 open import Cat.Category.Monad.Voevodsky
 
+open import Cat.Categories.Opposite
 open import Cat.Categories.Sets
 open import Cat.Categories.Cat
 open import Cat.Categories.Rel

src/Cat/Categories/CwF.agda

@@ -5,6 +5,7 @@ open import Cat.Prelude
 open import Cat.Category
 open import Cat.Category.Functor
 open import Cat.Categories.Fam
+open import Cat.Categories.Opposite
 
 module _ {ℓa ℓb : Level} where
   record CwF : Set (lsuc (ℓa ⊔ ℓb)) where

src/Cat/Categories/Fun.agda

@@ -1,13 +1,14 @@
 {-# OPTIONS --allow-unsolved-metas --cubical --caching #-}
 module Cat.Categories.Fun where
 
+
 open import Cat.Prelude
 open import Cat.Equivalence
-
 open import Cat.Category
 open import Cat.Category.Functor
 import Cat.Category.NaturalTransformation
   as NaturalTransformation
+open import Cat.Categories.Opposite
 
 module Fun {ℓc ℓc' ℓd ℓd' : Level} (ℂ : Category ℓc ℓc') (𝔻 : Category ℓd ℓd') where
   open NaturalTransformation ℂ 𝔻 public hiding (module Properties)
@@ -52,14 +53,14 @@ module Fun {ℓc ℓc' ℓd ℓd' : Level} (ℂ : Category ℓc ℓc') (𝔻 : C
           lem : coe (pp {C}) 𝔻.identity ≡ f→g
           lem = trans (𝔻.9-1-9-right {b = Functor.omap F C} 𝔻.identity p*) 𝔻.rightIdentity
 
-      idToNatTrans : NaturalTransformation F G
+      -- idToNatTrans : NaturalTransformation F G
-      idToNatTrans = (λ C → coe pp 𝔻.identity) , λ f → begin
+      -- idToNatTrans = (λ C → coe pp 𝔻.identity) , λ f → begin
-        coe pp 𝔻.identity 𝔻.<<< F.fmap f ≡⟨ cong (𝔻._<<< F.fmap f) lem ⟩
+      --   coe pp 𝔻.identity 𝔻.<<< F.fmap f ≡⟨ cong (𝔻._<<< F.fmap f) lem ⟩
-        -- Just need to show that f→g is a natural transformation
+      --   -- Just need to show that f→g is a natural transformation
-        -- I know that it has an inverse; g→f
+      --   -- I know that it has an inverse; g→f
-        f→g 𝔻.<<< F.fmap f ≡⟨ {!lem!} ⟩
+      --   f→g 𝔻.<<< F.fmap f ≡⟨ {!lem!} ⟩
-        G.fmap f 𝔻.<<< f→g ≡⟨ cong (G.fmap f 𝔻.<<<_) (sym lem) ⟩
+      --   G.fmap f 𝔻.<<< f→g ≡⟨ cong (G.fmap f 𝔻.<<<_) (sym lem) ⟩
-        G.fmap f 𝔻.<<< coe pp 𝔻.identity ∎
+      --   G.fmap f 𝔻.<<< coe pp 𝔻.identity ∎
 
     module _ {A B : Functor ℂ 𝔻} where
       module A = Functor A
@@ -92,70 +93,70 @@ module Fun {ℓc ℓc' ℓd ℓd' : Level} (ℂ : Category ℓc ℓc') (𝔻 : C
         U : (F : ℂ.Object → 𝔻.Object) → Set _
         U F = {A B : ℂ.Object} → ℂ [ A , B ] → 𝔻 [ F A , F B ]
 
-        module _
+      --   module _
-          (omap : ℂ.Object → 𝔻.Object)
+      --     (omap : ℂ.Object → 𝔻.Object)
-          (p    : A.omap ≡ omap)
+      --     (p    : A.omap ≡ omap)
-          where
-          D : Set _
-          D = ( fmap : U omap)
-            → ( let
-                 raw-B : RawFunctor ℂ 𝔻
-                 raw-B = record { omap = omap ; fmap = fmap }
-              )
-            → (isF-B' : IsFunctor ℂ 𝔻 raw-B)
-            → ( let
-                B' : Functor ℂ 𝔻
-                B' = record { raw = raw-B ; isFunctor = isF-B' }
-              )
-            → (iso' : A ≊ B') → PathP (λ i → U (p i)) A.fmap fmap
-          -- D : Set _
-          -- D = PathP (λ i → U (p i)) A.fmap fmap
-          -- eeq : (λ f → A.fmap f) ≡ fmap
-          -- eeq = funExtImp (λ A → funExtImp (λ B → funExt (λ f → isofmap {A} {B} f)))
       --     where
-          --   module _ {X : ℂ.Object} {Y : ℂ.Object} (f : ℂ [ X , Y ]) where
+      --     D : Set _
-          --     isofmap : A.fmap f ≡ fmap f
+      --     D = ( fmap : U omap)
-          --     isofmap = {!ap!}
+      --       → ( let
-        d : D A.omap refl
+      --            raw-B : RawFunctor ℂ 𝔻
-        d = res
+      --            raw-B = record { omap = omap ; fmap = fmap }
-          where
+      --         )
-          module _
+      --       → (isF-B' : IsFunctor ℂ 𝔻 raw-B)
-            ( fmap : U A.omap )
+      --       → ( let
-            ( let
+      --           B' : Functor ℂ 𝔻
-              raw-B : RawFunctor ℂ 𝔻
+      --           B' = record { raw = raw-B ; isFunctor = isF-B' }
-              raw-B = record { omap = A.omap ; fmap = fmap }
+      --         )
-            )
+      --       → (iso' : A ≊ B') → PathP (λ i → U (p i)) A.fmap fmap
-            ( isF-B' : IsFunctor ℂ 𝔻 raw-B )
+      --     -- D : Set _
-            ( let
+      --     -- D = PathP (λ i → U (p i)) A.fmap fmap
-              B' : Functor ℂ 𝔻
+      --     -- eeq : (λ f → A.fmap f) ≡ fmap
-              B' = record { raw = raw-B ; isFunctor = isF-B' }
+      --     -- eeq = funExtImp (λ A → funExtImp (λ B → funExt (λ f → isofmap {A} {B} f)))
-            )
+      --     --   where
-            ( iso' : A ≊ B' )
+      --     --   module _ {X : ℂ.Object} {Y : ℂ.Object} (f : ℂ [ X , Y ]) where
-            where
+      --     --     isofmap : A.fmap f ≡ fmap f
-            module _ {X Y : ℂ.Object} (f : ℂ [ X , Y ]) where
+      --     --     isofmap = {!ap!}
-              step : {!!} 𝔻.≊ {!!}
+      --   d : D A.omap refl
-              step = {!!}
+      --   d = res
-              resres : A.fmap {X} {Y} f ≡ fmap {X} {Y} f
+      --     where
-              resres = {!!}
+      --     module _
-            res : PathP (λ i → U A.omap) A.fmap fmap
+      --       ( fmap : U A.omap )
-            res i {X} {Y} f = resres f i
+      --       ( let
+      --         raw-B : RawFunctor ℂ 𝔻
+      --         raw-B = record { omap = A.omap ; fmap = fmap }
+      --       )
+      --       ( isF-B' : IsFunctor ℂ 𝔻 raw-B )
+      --       ( let
+      --         B' : Functor ℂ 𝔻
+      --         B' = record { raw = raw-B ; isFunctor = isF-B' }
+      --       )
+      --       ( iso' : A ≊ B' )
+      --       where
+      --       module _ {X Y : ℂ.Object} (f : ℂ [ X , Y ]) where
+      --         step : {!!} 𝔻.≊ {!!}
+      --         step = {!!}
+      --         resres : A.fmap {X} {Y} f ≡ fmap {X} {Y} f
+      --         resres = {!!}
+      --       res : PathP (λ i → U A.omap) A.fmap fmap
+      --       res i {X} {Y} f = resres f i
 
-        fmapEq : PathP (λ i → U (omapEq i)) A.fmap B.fmap
+      --   fmapEq : PathP (λ i → U (omapEq i)) A.fmap B.fmap
-        fmapEq = pathJ D d B.omap omapEq B.fmap B.isFunctor iso
+      --   fmapEq = pathJ D d B.omap omapEq B.fmap B.isFunctor iso
 
-        rawEq : A.raw ≡ B.raw
+      --   rawEq : A.raw ≡ B.raw
-        rawEq i = record { omap = omapEq i ; fmap = fmapEq i }
+      --   rawEq i = record { omap = omapEq i ; fmap = fmapEq i }
-
-      private
-        f : (A ≡ B) → (A ≊ B)
-        f p = idToNatTrans p , idToNatTrans (sym p) , NaturalTransformation≡ A A (funExt (λ C → {!!})) , {!!}
-        g : (A ≊ B) → (A ≡ B)
-        g = Functor≡ ∘ rawEq
-        inv : AreInverses f g
-        inv = {!funExt λ p → ?!} , {!!}
 
+      -- private
+      --   f : (A ≡ B) → (A ≊ B)
+      --   f p = idToNatTrans p , idToNatTrans (sym p) , NaturalTransformation≡ A A (funExt (λ C → {!!})) , {!!}
+      --   g : (A ≊ B) → (A ≡ B)
+      --   g = Functor≡ ∘ rawEq
+      --   inv : AreInverses f g
+      --   inv = {!funExt λ p → ?!} , {!!}
+      postulate
         iso : (A ≡ B) ≅ (A ≊ B)
-      iso = f , g , inv
+--      iso = f , g , inv
 
       univ : (A ≡ B) ≃ (A ≊ B)
       univ = fromIsomorphism _ _ iso

src/Cat/Categories/Opposite.agda

@@ -0,0 +1,96 @@
+{-# OPTIONS --cubical #-}
+module Cat.Categories.Opposite where
+
+open import Cat.Prelude
+open import Cat.Equivalence
+open import Cat.Category
+
+-- | The opposite category
+--
+-- The opposite category is the category where the direction of the arrows are
+-- flipped.
+module _ {ℓa ℓb : Level} where
+  module _ (ℂ : Category ℓa ℓb) where
+    private
+      module _ where
+        module ℂ = Category ℂ
+        opRaw : RawCategory ℓa ℓb
+        RawCategory.Object   opRaw = ℂ.Object
+        RawCategory.Arrow    opRaw = flip ℂ.Arrow
+        RawCategory.identity opRaw = ℂ.identity
+        RawCategory._<<<_    opRaw = ℂ._>>>_
+
+        open RawCategory opRaw
+
+        isPreCategory : IsPreCategory opRaw
+        IsPreCategory.isAssociative isPreCategory = sym ℂ.isAssociative
+        IsPreCategory.isIdentity    isPreCategory = swap ℂ.isIdentity
+        IsPreCategory.arrowsAreSets isPreCategory = ℂ.arrowsAreSets
+
+      open IsPreCategory isPreCategory
+
+      module _ {A B : ℂ.Object} where
+        open Σ (toIso _ _ (ℂ.univalent {A} {B}))
+          renaming (fst to idToIso* ; snd to inv*)
+        open AreInverses {f = ℂ.idToIso A B} {idToIso*} inv*
+
+        shuffle : A ≊ B → A ℂ.≊ B
+        shuffle (f , g , inv) = g , f , inv
+
+        shuffle~ : A ℂ.≊ B → A ≊ B
+        shuffle~ (f , g , inv) = g , f , inv
+
+        lem : (p : A ≡ B) → idToIso A B p ≡ shuffle~ (ℂ.idToIso A B p)
+        lem p = isoEq refl
+
+        isoToId* : A ≊ B → A ≡ B
+        isoToId* = idToIso* ∘ shuffle
+
+        inv : AreInverses (idToIso A B) isoToId*
+        inv =
+          ( funExt (λ x → begin
+            (isoToId* ∘ idToIso A B) x
+              ≡⟨⟩
+            (idToIso*  ∘ shuffle ∘ idToIso A B) x
+              ≡⟨ cong (λ φ → φ x) (cong (λ φ → idToIso* ∘ shuffle ∘ φ) (funExt lem)) ⟩
+            (idToIso*  ∘ shuffle ∘ shuffle~ ∘ ℂ.idToIso A B) x
+              ≡⟨⟩
+            (idToIso*  ∘ ℂ.idToIso A B) x
+              ≡⟨ (λ i → verso-recto i x) ⟩
+            x ∎)
+          , funExt (λ x → begin
+            (idToIso A B ∘ idToIso* ∘ shuffle) x
+              ≡⟨ cong (λ φ → φ x) (cong (λ φ → φ ∘ idToIso* ∘ shuffle) (funExt lem)) ⟩
+            (shuffle~ ∘ ℂ.idToIso A B ∘ idToIso* ∘ shuffle) x
+              ≡⟨ cong (λ φ → φ x) (cong (λ φ → shuffle~ ∘ φ ∘ shuffle) recto-verso) ⟩
+            (shuffle~ ∘ shuffle) x
+              ≡⟨⟩
+            x ∎)
+          )
+
+      isCategory : IsCategory opRaw
+      IsCategory.isPreCategory isCategory = isPreCategory
+      IsCategory.univalent     isCategory
+        = univalenceFromIsomorphism (isoToId* , inv)
+
+    opposite : Category ℓa ℓb
+    Category.raw        opposite = opRaw
+    Category.isCategory opposite = isCategory
+
+  -- As demonstrated here a side-effect of having no-eta-equality on constructors
+  -- means that we need to pick things apart to show that things are indeed
+  -- definitionally equal. I.e; a thing that would normally be provable in one
+  -- line now takes 13!! Admittedly it's a simple proof.
+  module _ {ℂ : Category ℓa ℓb} where
+    open Category ℂ
+    private
+      -- Since they really are definitionally equal we just need to pick apart
+      -- the data-type.
+      rawInv : Category.raw (opposite (opposite ℂ)) ≡ raw
+      RawCategory.Object   (rawInv _) = Object
+      RawCategory.Arrow    (rawInv _) = Arrow
+      RawCategory.identity (rawInv _) = identity
+      RawCategory._<<<_    (rawInv _) = _<<<_
+
+    oppositeIsInvolution : opposite (opposite ℂ) ≡ ℂ
+    oppositeIsInvolution = Category≡ rawInv

src/Cat/Categories/Rel.agda

@@ -2,6 +2,7 @@
 module Cat.Categories.Rel where
 
 open import Cat.Prelude hiding (Rel)
+open import Cat.Equivalence
 
 open import Cat.Category
 
@@ -61,15 +62,9 @@ module _ {A B : Set} {S : Subset (A × B)} (ab : A × B) where
           lem0 = (λ a'' a≡a'' → ∀ a''b∈S → (forwards ∘ backwards) (a'' , a≡a'' , a''b∈S) ≡ (a'' , a≡a'' , a''b∈S))
           lem1 = (λ z₁ → cong (\ z → a , refl , z) (pathJprop (\ y _ → y) z₁))
 
-      isequiv : isEquiv
-        (Σ[ a' ∈ A ] (a , a') ∈ Diag A × (a' , b) ∈ S)
-        ((a , b) ∈ S)
-        backwards
-      isequiv y = gradLemma backwards forwards fwd-bwd bwd-fwd y
-
       equi : (Σ[ a' ∈ A ] (a , a') ∈ Diag A × (a' , b) ∈ S)
         ≃ (a , b) ∈ S
-      equi = backwards , isequiv
+      equi = fromIsomorphism _ _ (backwards , forwards , funExt bwd-fwd , funExt fwd-bwd)
 
     ident-r : (Σ[ a' ∈ A ] (a , a') ∈ Diag A × (a' , b) ∈ S)
       ≡ (a , b) ∈ S
@@ -95,15 +90,9 @@ module _ {A B : Set} {S : Subset (A × B)} (ab : A × B) where
           lem0 = (λ b'' b≡b'' → (ab''∈S : (a , b'') ∈ S) → (forwards ∘ backwards) (b'' , ab''∈S , sym b≡b'') ≡ (b'' , ab''∈S , sym b≡b''))
           lem1 = (λ ab''∈S → cong (λ φ → b , φ , refl) (pathJprop (λ y _ → y) ab''∈S))
 
-      isequiv : isEquiv
-        (Σ[ b' ∈ B ] (a , b') ∈ S × (b' , b) ∈ Diag B)
-        ((a , b) ∈ S)
-        backwards
-      isequiv ab∈S = gradLemma backwards forwards bwd-fwd fwd-bwd ab∈S
-
       equi : (Σ[ b' ∈ B ] (a , b') ∈ S × (b' , b) ∈ Diag B)
         ≃ ab ∈ S
-      equi = backwards , isequiv
+      equi = fromIsomorphism _ _ (backwards , (forwards , funExt fwd-bwd , funExt bwd-fwd))
 
     ident-l : (Σ[ b' ∈ B ] (a , b') ∈ S × (b' , b) ∈ Diag B)
       ≡ ab ∈ S
@@ -133,15 +122,9 @@ module _ {A B C D : Set} {S : Subset (A × B)} {R : Subset (B × C)} {Q : Subset
     bwd-fwd : (x : Q⊕⟨R⊕S⟩) → (bwd ∘ fwd) x ≡ x
     bwd-fwd x = refl
 
-    isequiv : isEquiv
-      (Σ[ c ∈ C ] (Σ[ b ∈ B ] (a , b) ∈ S × (b , c) ∈ R) × (c , d) ∈ Q)
-      (Σ[ b ∈ B ] (a , b) ∈ S × (Σ[ c ∈ C ] (b , c) ∈ R × (c , d) ∈ Q))
-      fwd
-    isequiv = gradLemma fwd bwd fwd-bwd bwd-fwd
-
     equi : (Σ[ c ∈ C ] (Σ[ b ∈ B ] (a , b) ∈ S × (b , c) ∈ R) × (c , d) ∈ Q)
       ≃ (Σ[ b ∈ B ] (a , b) ∈ S × (Σ[ c ∈ C ] (b , c) ∈ R × (c , d) ∈ Q))
-    equi = fwd , isequiv
+    equi = fromIsomorphism _ _ (fwd , bwd , funExt bwd-fwd , funExt fwd-bwd)
 
     -- isAssociativec : Q + (R + S) ≡ (Q + R) + S
   is-isAssociative : (Σ[ c ∈ C ] (Σ[ b ∈ B ] (a , b) ∈ S × (b , c) ∈ R) × (c , d) ∈ Q)

src/Cat/Categories/Sets.agda

@@ -3,11 +3,11 @@
 module Cat.Categories.Sets where
 
 open import Cat.Prelude as P
-
+open import Cat.Equivalence
 open import Cat.Category
 open import Cat.Category.Functor
 open import Cat.Category.Product
-open import Cat.Equivalence
+open import Cat.Categories.Opposite
 
 _⊙_ : {ℓa ℓb ℓc : Level} {A : Set ℓa} {B : Set ℓb} {C : Set ℓc} → (A ≃ B) → (B ≃ C) → A ≃ C
 eqA ⊙ eqB = Equivalence.compose eqA eqB

src/Cat/Categories/Span.agda

@@ -0,0 +1,170 @@
+{-# OPTIONS --cubical --caching #-}
+module Cat.Categories.Span where
+
+open import Cat.Prelude as P hiding (_×_ ; fst ; snd)
+open import Cat.Equivalence
+open import Cat.Category
+
+module _ {ℓa ℓb : Level} (ℂ : Category ℓa ℓb)
+  (let module ℂ = Category ℂ) (𝒜 ℬ : ℂ.Object) where
+
+  open P
+
+  private
+    module _ where
+      raw : RawCategory _ _
+      raw = record
+        { Object = Σ[ X ∈ ℂ.Object ] ℂ.Arrow X 𝒜 × ℂ.Arrow X ℬ
+        ; Arrow = λ{ (A , a0 , a1) (B , b0 , b1)
+          → Σ[ f ∈ ℂ.Arrow A B ]
+              ℂ [ b0 ∘ f ] ≡ a0
+            × ℂ [ b1 ∘ f ] ≡ a1
+            }
+        ; identity = λ{ {X , f , g} → ℂ.identity {X} , ℂ.rightIdentity , ℂ.rightIdentity}
+        ; _<<<_ = λ { {_ , a0 , a1} {_ , b0 , b1} {_ , c0 , c1} (f , f0 , f1) (g , g0 , g1)
+          → (f ℂ.<<< g)
+            , (begin
+                ℂ [ c0 ∘ ℂ [ f ∘ g ] ] ≡⟨ ℂ.isAssociative ⟩
+                ℂ [ ℂ [ c0 ∘ f ] ∘ g ] ≡⟨ cong (λ φ → ℂ [ φ ∘ g ]) f0 ⟩
+                ℂ [ b0 ∘ g ] ≡⟨ g0 ⟩
+                a0 ∎
+              )
+            , (begin
+               ℂ [ c1 ∘ ℂ [ f ∘ g ] ] ≡⟨ ℂ.isAssociative ⟩
+               ℂ [ ℂ [ c1 ∘ f ] ∘ g ] ≡⟨ cong (λ φ → ℂ [ φ ∘ g ]) f1 ⟩
+               ℂ [ b1 ∘ g ] ≡⟨ g1 ⟩
+                a1 ∎
+              )
+          }
+        }
+
+      module _ where
+        open RawCategory raw
+
+        propEqs : ∀ {X' : Object}{Y' : Object} (let X , xa , xb = X') (let Y , ya , yb = Y')
+                    → (xy : ℂ.Arrow X Y) → isProp (ℂ [ ya ∘ xy ] ≡ xa × ℂ [ yb ∘ xy ] ≡ xb)
+        propEqs xs = propSig (ℂ.arrowsAreSets _ _) (\ _ → ℂ.arrowsAreSets _ _)
+
+        arrowEq : {X Y : Object} {f g : Arrow X Y} → fst f ≡ fst g → f ≡ g
+        arrowEq {X} {Y} {f} {g} p = λ i → p i , lemPropF propEqs p {snd f} {snd g} i
+
+        isAssociative : IsAssociative
+        isAssociative {f = f , f0 , f1} {g , g0 , g1} {h , h0 , h1} = arrowEq ℂ.isAssociative
+
+        isIdentity : IsIdentity identity
+        isIdentity {AA@(A , a0 , a1)} {BB@(B , b0 , b1)} {f , f0 , f1} = arrowEq ℂ.leftIdentity , arrowEq ℂ.rightIdentity
+
+        arrowsAreSets : ArrowsAreSets
+        arrowsAreSets {X , x0 , x1} {Y , y0 , y1}
+          = sigPresSet ℂ.arrowsAreSets λ a → propSet (propEqs _)
+
+        isPreCat : IsPreCategory raw
+        IsPreCategory.isAssociative isPreCat = isAssociative
+        IsPreCategory.isIdentity    isPreCat = isIdentity
+        IsPreCategory.arrowsAreSets isPreCat = arrowsAreSets
+
+      open IsPreCategory isPreCat
+
+      module _ {𝕏 𝕐 : Object} where
+        open Σ 𝕏 renaming (fst to X ; snd to x)
+        open Σ x renaming (fst to xa ; snd to xb)
+        open Σ 𝕐 renaming (fst to Y ; snd to y)
+        open Σ y renaming (fst to ya ; snd to yb)
+        open import Cat.Equivalence using (composeIso) renaming (_≅_ to _≅_)
+
+        -- The proof will be a sequence of isomorphisms between the
+        -- following 4 types:
+        T0 = ((X , xa , xb) ≡ (Y , ya , yb))
+        T1 = (Σ[ p ∈ (X ≡ Y) ] (PathP (λ i → ℂ.Arrow (p i) 𝒜) xa ya) × (PathP (λ i → ℂ.Arrow (p i) ℬ) xb yb))
+        T2 = Σ (X ℂ.≊ Y) (λ iso
+            → let p = ℂ.isoToId iso
+            in
+            ( PathP (λ i → ℂ.Arrow (p i) 𝒜) xa ya)
+            × PathP (λ i → ℂ.Arrow (p i) ℬ) xb yb
+            )
+        T3 = ((X , xa , xb) ≊ (Y , ya , yb))
+
+        step0 : T0 ≅ T1
+        step0
+          = (λ p → cong fst p , cong-d (fst ∘ snd) p , cong-d (snd ∘ snd) p)
+          -- , (λ x  → λ i → fst x i , (fst (snd x) i) , (snd (snd x) i))
+          , (λ{ (p , q , r) → Σ≡ p λ i → q i , r i})
+          , funExt (λ{ p → refl})
+          , funExt (λ{ (p , q , r) → refl})
+
+        step1 : T1 ≅ T2
+        step1
+          = symIso
+              (isoSigFst
+                {A = (X ℂ.≊ Y)}
+                {B = (X ≡ Y)}
+                (ℂ.groupoidObject _ _)
+                {Q = \ p → (PathP (λ i → ℂ.Arrow (p i) 𝒜) xa ya) × (PathP (λ i → ℂ.Arrow (p i) ℬ) xb yb)}
+                ℂ.isoToId
+                (symIso (_ , ℂ.asTypeIso {X} {Y}) .snd)
+              )
+
+        step2 : T2 ≅ T3
+        step2
+          = ( λ{ (iso@(f , f~ , inv-f) , p , q)
+              → ( f  , sym (ℂ.domain-twist-sym  iso p) , sym (ℂ.domain-twist-sym iso q))
+              , ( f~ , sym (ℂ.domain-twist      iso p) , sym (ℂ.domain-twist     iso q))
+              , arrowEq (fst inv-f)
+              , arrowEq (snd inv-f)
+              }
+            )
+          , (λ{ (f , f~ , inv-f , inv-f~) →
+            let
+              iso : X ℂ.≊ Y
+              iso = fst f , fst f~ , cong fst inv-f , cong fst inv-f~
+              p : X ≡ Y
+              p = ℂ.isoToId iso
+              pA : ℂ.Arrow X 𝒜 ≡ ℂ.Arrow Y 𝒜
+              pA = cong (λ x → ℂ.Arrow x 𝒜) p
+              pB : ℂ.Arrow X ℬ ≡ ℂ.Arrow Y ℬ
+              pB = cong (λ x → ℂ.Arrow x ℬ) p
+              k0 = begin
+                coe pB xb ≡⟨ ℂ.coe-dom iso ⟩
+                xb ℂ.<<< fst f~ ≡⟨ snd (snd f~) ⟩
+                yb ∎
+              k1 = begin
+                coe pA xa ≡⟨ ℂ.coe-dom iso ⟩
+                xa ℂ.<<< fst f~ ≡⟨ fst (snd f~) ⟩
+                ya ∎
+            in iso , coe-lem-inv k1 , coe-lem-inv k0})
+          , funExt (λ x → lemSig
+              (λ x → propSig prop0 (λ _ → prop1))
+              _ _
+              (Σ≡ refl (ℂ.propIsomorphism _ _ _)))
+          , funExt (λ{ (f , _) → lemSig propIsomorphism _ _ (Σ≡ refl (propEqs _ _ _))})
+            where
+            prop0 : ∀ {x} → isProp (PathP (λ i → ℂ.Arrow (ℂ.isoToId x i) 𝒜) xa ya)
+            prop0 {x} = pathJ (λ y p → ∀ x → isProp (PathP (λ i → ℂ.Arrow (p i) 𝒜) xa x)) (λ x → ℂ.arrowsAreSets _ _) Y (ℂ.isoToId x) ya
+            prop1 : ∀ {x} → isProp (PathP (λ i → ℂ.Arrow (ℂ.isoToId x i) ℬ) xb yb)
+            prop1 {x} = pathJ (λ y p → ∀ x → isProp (PathP (λ i → ℂ.Arrow (p i) ℬ) xb x)) (λ x → ℂ.arrowsAreSets _ _) Y (ℂ.isoToId x) yb
+        -- One thing to watch out for here is that the isomorphisms going forwards
+        -- must compose to give idToIso
+        iso
+          : ((X , xa , xb) ≡ (Y , ya , yb))
+          ≅ ((X , xa , xb) ≊ (Y , ya , yb))
+        iso = step0 ⊙ step1 ⊙ step2
+          where
+          infixl 5 _⊙_
+          _⊙_ = composeIso
+        equiv1
+          : ((X , xa , xb) ≡ (Y , ya , yb))
+          ≃ ((X , xa , xb) ≊ (Y , ya , yb))
+        equiv1 = _ , fromIso _ _ (snd iso)
+
+      univalent : Univalent
+      univalent = univalenceFrom≃ equiv1
+
+      isCat : IsCategory raw
+      IsCategory.isPreCategory isCat = isPreCat
+      IsCategory.univalent     isCat = univalent
+
+  span : Category _ _
+  span = record
+    { raw = raw
+    ; isCategory = isCat
+    }

src/Cat/Category.agda

@@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ open Cat.Equivalence
 -- about these. The laws defined are the types the propositions - not the
 -- witnesses to them!
 record RawCategory (ℓa ℓb : Level) : Set (lsuc (ℓa ⊔ ℓb)) where
-  no-eta-equality
+--  no-eta-equality
   field
     Object   : Set ℓa
     Arrow    : Object → Object → Set ℓb
@@ -55,14 +55,7 @@ record RawCategory (ℓa ℓb : Level) : Set (lsuc (ℓa ⊔ ℓb)) where
   -- infixl 8 _>>>_
   infixl 10 _<<<_ _>>>_
 
-  -- | Operations on data
+  -- | Reverse arrow composition
-
-  domain : {a b : Object} → Arrow a b → Object
-  domain {a} _ = a
-
-  codomain : {a b : Object} → Arrow a b → Object
-  codomain {b = b} _ = b
-
   _>>>_ : {A B C : Object} → (Arrow A B) → (Arrow B C) → Arrow A C
   f >>> g = g <<< f
 
@@ -631,95 +624,3 @@ module _ {ℓa ℓb : Level} (ℂ : Category ℓa ℓb) where
 
   _[_∘_] : {A B C : Object} → (g : Arrow B C) → (f : Arrow A B) → Arrow A C
   _[_∘_] = _<<<_
-
--- | The opposite category
---
--- The opposite category is the category where the direction of the arrows are
--- flipped.
-module Opposite {ℓa ℓb : Level} where
-  module _ (ℂ : Category ℓa ℓb) where
-    private
-      module _ where
-        module ℂ = Category ℂ
-        opRaw : RawCategory ℓa ℓb
-        RawCategory.Object   opRaw = ℂ.Object
-        RawCategory.Arrow    opRaw = flip ℂ.Arrow
-        RawCategory.identity opRaw = ℂ.identity
-        RawCategory._<<<_    opRaw = ℂ._>>>_
-
-        open RawCategory opRaw
-
-        isPreCategory : IsPreCategory opRaw
-        IsPreCategory.isAssociative isPreCategory = sym ℂ.isAssociative
-        IsPreCategory.isIdentity    isPreCategory = swap ℂ.isIdentity
-        IsPreCategory.arrowsAreSets isPreCategory = ℂ.arrowsAreSets
-
-      open IsPreCategory isPreCategory
-
-      module _ {A B : ℂ.Object} where
-        open Σ (toIso _ _ (ℂ.univalent {A} {B}))
-          renaming (fst to idToIso* ; snd to inv*)
-        open AreInverses {f = ℂ.idToIso A B} {idToIso*} inv*
-
-        shuffle : A ≊ B → A ℂ.≊ B
-        shuffle (f , g , inv) = g , f , inv
-
-        shuffle~ : A ℂ.≊ B → A ≊ B
-        shuffle~ (f , g , inv) = g , f , inv
-
-        lem : (p : A ≡ B) → idToIso A B p ≡ shuffle~ (ℂ.idToIso A B p)
-        lem p = isoEq refl
-
-        isoToId* : A ≊ B → A ≡ B
-        isoToId* = idToIso* ∘ shuffle
-
-        inv : AreInverses (idToIso A B) isoToId*
-        inv =
-          ( funExt (λ x → begin
-            (isoToId* ∘ idToIso A B) x
-              ≡⟨⟩
-            (idToIso*  ∘ shuffle ∘ idToIso A B) x
-              ≡⟨ cong (λ φ → φ x) (cong (λ φ → idToIso* ∘ shuffle ∘ φ) (funExt lem)) ⟩
-            (idToIso*  ∘ shuffle ∘ shuffle~ ∘ ℂ.idToIso A B) x
-              ≡⟨⟩
-            (idToIso*  ∘ ℂ.idToIso A B) x
-              ≡⟨ (λ i → verso-recto i x) ⟩
-            x ∎)
-          , funExt (λ x → begin
-            (idToIso A B ∘ idToIso* ∘ shuffle) x
-              ≡⟨ cong (λ φ → φ x) (cong (λ φ → φ ∘ idToIso* ∘ shuffle) (funExt lem)) ⟩
-            (shuffle~ ∘ ℂ.idToIso A B ∘ idToIso* ∘ shuffle) x
-              ≡⟨ cong (λ φ → φ x) (cong (λ φ → shuffle~ ∘ φ ∘ shuffle) recto-verso) ⟩
-            (shuffle~ ∘ shuffle) x
-              ≡⟨⟩
-            x ∎)
-          )
-
-      isCategory : IsCategory opRaw
-      IsCategory.isPreCategory isCategory = isPreCategory
-      IsCategory.univalent     isCategory
-        = univalenceFromIsomorphism (isoToId* , inv)
-
-    opposite : Category ℓa ℓb
-    Category.raw        opposite = opRaw
-    Category.isCategory opposite = isCategory
-
-  -- As demonstrated here a side-effect of having no-eta-equality on constructors
-  -- means that we need to pick things apart to show that things are indeed
-  -- definitionally equal. I.e; a thing that would normally be provable in one
-  -- line now takes 13!! Admittedly it's a simple proof.
-  module _ {ℂ : Category ℓa ℓb} where
-    open Category ℂ
-    private
-      -- Since they really are definitionally equal we just need to pick apart
-      -- the data-type.
-      rawInv : Category.raw (opposite (opposite ℂ)) ≡ raw
-      RawCategory.Object   (rawInv _) = Object
-      RawCategory.Arrow    (rawInv _) = Arrow
-      RawCategory.identity (rawInv _) = identity
-      RawCategory._<<<_    (rawInv _) = _<<<_
-
-    oppositeIsInvolution : opposite (opposite ℂ) ≡ ℂ
-    oppositeIsInvolution = Category≡ rawInv
-
-open Opposite public

src/Cat/Category/Monad.agda

@@ -28,186 +28,213 @@ import Cat.Category.Monad.Monoidal
 import Cat.Category.Monad.Kleisli
 open import Cat.Categories.Fun
 
-module Monoidal = Cat.Category.Monad.Monoidal
-module Kleisli  = Cat.Category.Monad.Kleisli
-
 -- | The monoidal- and kleisli presentation of monads are equivalent.
 module _ {ℓa ℓb : Level} (ℂ : Category ℓa ℓb) where
   open Cat.Category.NaturalTransformation ℂ ℂ using (NaturalTransformation ; propIsNatural)
   private
     module ℂ = Category ℂ
     open ℂ using (Object ; Arrow ; identity ; _<<<_ ; _>>>_)
-    module M = Monoidal ℂ
-    module K = Kleisli  ℂ
 
-    module _ (m : M.RawMonad) where
+    module Monoidal = Cat.Category.Monad.Monoidal ℂ
-      open M.RawMonad m
+    module Kleisli  = Cat.Category.Monad.Kleisli ℂ
 
-      forthRaw : K.RawMonad
+    module _ (m : Monoidal.RawMonad) where
-      K.RawMonad.omap forthRaw = Romap
+      open Monoidal.RawMonad m
-      K.RawMonad.pure forthRaw = pureT _
-      K.RawMonad.bind forthRaw = bind
 
-    module _ {raw : M.RawMonad} (m : M.IsMonad raw) where
+      toKleisliRaw : Kleisli.RawMonad
-      private
+      Kleisli.RawMonad.omap toKleisliRaw = Romap
-        module MI = M.IsMonad m
+      Kleisli.RawMonad.pure toKleisliRaw = pure
-      forthIsMonad : K.IsMonad (forthRaw raw)
+      Kleisli.RawMonad.bind toKleisliRaw = bind
-      K.IsMonad.isIdentity     forthIsMonad = snd MI.isInverse
-      K.IsMonad.isNatural      forthIsMonad = MI.isNatural
-      K.IsMonad.isDistributive forthIsMonad = MI.isDistributive
 
-    forth : M.Monad → K.Monad
+    module _ {raw : Monoidal.RawMonad} (m : Monoidal.IsMonad raw) where
-    Kleisli.Monad.raw     (forth m) = forthRaw     (M.Monad.raw     m)
+      open Monoidal.IsMonad m
-    Kleisli.Monad.isMonad (forth m) = forthIsMonad (M.Monad.isMonad m)
 
-    module _ (m : K.Monad) where
+      open Kleisli.RawMonad (toKleisliRaw raw) using (_>=>_)
-      open K.Monad m
+      toKleisliIsMonad : Kleisli.IsMonad (toKleisliRaw raw)
+      Kleisli.IsMonad.isIdentity     toKleisliIsMonad = begin
+        bind pure ≡⟨⟩
+        join <<< (fmap pure) ≡⟨ snd isInverse ⟩
+        identity ∎
+      Kleisli.IsMonad.isNatural      toKleisliIsMonad f = begin
+        pure >=> f ≡⟨⟩
+        pure >>> bind f ≡⟨⟩
+        bind f <<< pure ≡⟨⟩
+        (join <<< fmap f) <<< pure ≡⟨ isNatural f ⟩
+        f ∎
+      Kleisli.IsMonad.isDistributive toKleisliIsMonad f g = begin
+        bind g >>> bind f ≡⟨⟩
+        (join <<< fmap f) <<< (join <<< fmap g) ≡⟨ isDistributive f g ⟩
+        join <<< fmap (join <<< fmap f <<< g) ≡⟨⟩
+        bind (g >=> f) ∎
+      -- Kleisli.IsMonad.isDistributive toKleisliIsMonad = isDistributive
 
-      backRaw : M.RawMonad
+    toKleisli : Monoidal.Monad → Kleisli.Monad
-      M.RawMonad.R      backRaw = R
+    Kleisli.Monad.raw     (toKleisli m) = toKleisliRaw     (Monoidal.Monad.raw     m)
-      M.RawMonad.pureNT backRaw = pureNT
+    Kleisli.Monad.isMonad (toKleisli m) = toKleisliIsMonad (Monoidal.Monad.isMonad m)
-      M.RawMonad.joinNT backRaw = joinNT
 
-      private
+    module _ (m : Kleisli.Monad) where
-        open M.RawMonad backRaw renaming
+      open Kleisli.Monad m
+
+      toMonoidalRaw : Monoidal.RawMonad
+      Monoidal.RawMonad.R      toMonoidalRaw = R
+      Monoidal.RawMonad.pureNT toMonoidalRaw = pureNT
+      Monoidal.RawMonad.joinNT toMonoidalRaw = joinNT
+
+      open Monoidal.RawMonad toMonoidalRaw renaming
         ( join to join*
         ; pure to pure*
         ; bind to bind*
         ; fmap to fmap*
-          )
+        ) using ()
-        module R = Functor (M.RawMonad.R backRaw)
 
-      backIsMonad : M.IsMonad backRaw
+      toMonoidalIsMonad : Monoidal.IsMonad toMonoidalRaw
-      M.IsMonad.isAssociative backIsMonad = begin
+      Monoidal.IsMonad.isAssociative toMonoidalIsMonad = begin
-        join* <<< R.fmap join* ≡⟨⟩
+        join* <<< fmap join* ≡⟨⟩
         join  <<< fmap join    ≡⟨ isNaturalForeign ⟩
         join  <<< join         ∎
-      M.IsMonad.isInverse backIsMonad {X} = inv-l , inv-r
+      Monoidal.IsMonad.isInverse toMonoidalIsMonad {X} = inv-l , inv-r
         where
         inv-l = begin
           join <<< pure                ≡⟨ fst isInverse ⟩
           identity                     ∎
         inv-r = begin
-          joinT X <<< R.fmap (pureT X) ≡⟨⟩
+          join* <<< fmap* pure*        ≡⟨⟩
           join <<< fmap pure           ≡⟨ snd isInverse ⟩
           identity                     ∎
 
-    back : K.Monad → M.Monad
+    toMonoidal : Kleisli.Monad → Monoidal.Monad
-    Monoidal.Monad.raw     (back m) = backRaw     m
+    Monoidal.Monad.raw     (toMonoidal m) = toMonoidalRaw     m
-    Monoidal.Monad.isMonad (back m) = backIsMonad m
+    Monoidal.Monad.isMonad (toMonoidal m) = toMonoidalIsMonad m
 
-    module _ (m : K.Monad) where
+    module _ (m : Kleisli.Monad) where
       private
-        open K.Monad m
+        open Kleisli.Monad m
         bindEq : ∀ {X Y}
-          → K.RawMonad.bind (forthRaw (backRaw m)) {X} {Y}
+          → Kleisli.RawMonad.bind (toKleisliRaw (toMonoidalRaw m)) {X} {Y}
-          ≡ K.RawMonad.bind (K.Monad.raw m)
+          ≡ bind
-        bindEq {X} {Y} = begin
+        bindEq {X} {Y} = funExt lem
-          K.RawMonad.bind (forthRaw (backRaw m))        ≡⟨⟩
-          (λ f → join <<< fmap f)                       ≡⟨⟩
-          (λ f → bind (f >>> pure) >>> bind identity)   ≡⟨ funExt lem ⟩
-          (λ f → bind f)                                ≡⟨⟩
-          bind                                          ∎
           where
           lem : (f : Arrow X (omap Y))
             → bind (f >>> pure) >>> bind identity
             ≡ bind f
           lem f = begin
+            join <<< fmap f
+              ≡⟨⟩
             bind (f >>> pure) >>> bind identity
               ≡⟨ isDistributive _ _ ⟩
+            bind ((f >>> pure) >=> identity)
+              ≡⟨⟩
             bind ((f >>> pure) >>> bind identity)
               ≡⟨ cong bind ℂ.isAssociative ⟩
             bind (f >>> (pure >>> bind identity))
+              ≡⟨⟩
+            bind (f >>> (pure >=> identity))
               ≡⟨ cong (λ φ → bind (f >>> φ)) (isNatural _) ⟩
             bind (f >>> identity)
               ≡⟨ cong bind ℂ.leftIdentity ⟩
             bind f ∎
 
-      forthRawEq : forthRaw (backRaw m) ≡ K.Monad.raw m
+      toKleisliRawEq : toKleisliRaw (toMonoidalRaw m) ≡ Kleisli.Monad.raw m
-      K.RawMonad.omap  (forthRawEq _) = omap
+      Kleisli.RawMonad.omap  (toKleisliRawEq i) = (begin
-      K.RawMonad.pure  (forthRawEq _) = pure
+          Kleisli.RawMonad.omap (toKleisliRaw (toMonoidalRaw m)) ≡⟨⟩
-      K.RawMonad.bind  (forthRawEq i) = bindEq i
+          Monoidal.RawMonad.Romap (toMonoidalRaw m) ≡⟨⟩
+          omap ∎
+        ) i
+      Kleisli.RawMonad.pure  (toKleisliRawEq i) = (begin
+          Kleisli.RawMonad.pure  (toKleisliRaw (toMonoidalRaw m)) ≡⟨⟩
+          Monoidal.RawMonad.pure (toMonoidalRaw m)               ≡⟨⟩
+          pure ∎
+        ) i
+      Kleisli.RawMonad.bind  (toKleisliRawEq i) = bindEq i
 
-    fortheq : (m : K.Monad) → forth (back m) ≡ m
+    toKleislieq : (m : Kleisli.Monad) → toKleisli (toMonoidal m) ≡ m
-    fortheq m = K.Monad≡ (forthRawEq m)
+    toKleislieq m = Kleisli.Monad≡ (toKleisliRawEq m)
 
-    module _ (m : M.Monad) where
+    module _ (m : Monoidal.Monad) where
       private
-        open M.Monad m
+        open Monoidal.Monad m
-        module KM = K.Monad (forth m)
+        -- module KM = Kleisli.Monad (toKleisli m)
+        open Kleisli.Monad (toKleisli m) renaming
+          ( bind to bind* ; omap to omap* ; join to join*
+          ; fmap to fmap* ; pure to pure* ; R to R*)
+          using ()
         module R = Functor R
-        omapEq : KM.omap ≡ Romap
+        omapEq : omap* ≡ Romap
         omapEq = refl
 
-        bindEq : ∀ {X Y} {f : Arrow X (Romap Y)} → KM.bind f ≡ bind f
+        bindEq : ∀ {X Y} {f : Arrow X (Romap Y)} → bind* f ≡ bind f
         bindEq {X} {Y} {f} = begin
-          KM.bind f           ≡⟨⟩
+          bind* f         ≡⟨⟩
-          joinT Y <<< fmap f ≡⟨⟩
+          join <<< fmap f ≡⟨⟩
           bind f          ∎
 
-        joinEq : ∀ {X} → KM.join ≡ joinT X
+        joinEq : ∀ {X} → join* ≡ joinT X
         joinEq {X} = begin
-          KM.join                    ≡⟨⟩
+          join*                  ≡⟨⟩
-          KM.bind identity           ≡⟨⟩
+          bind* identity         ≡⟨⟩
           bind identity          ≡⟨⟩
-          joinT X <<< fmap identity ≡⟨ cong (λ φ → _ <<< φ) R.isIdentity ⟩
+          join <<< fmap identity ≡⟨ cong (λ φ → _ <<< φ) R.isIdentity ⟩
-          joinT X <<< identity       ≡⟨ ℂ.rightIdentity ⟩
+          join <<< identity      ≡⟨ ℂ.rightIdentity ⟩
-          joinT X                    ∎
+          join                   ∎
 
-        fmapEq : ∀ {A B} → KM.fmap {A} {B} ≡ fmap
+        fmapEq : ∀ {A B} → fmap* {A} {B} ≡ fmap
         fmapEq {A} {B} = funExt (λ f → begin
-          KM.fmap f                                ≡⟨⟩
+          fmap* f                          ≡⟨⟩
-          KM.bind (f >>> KM.pure)                  ≡⟨⟩
+          bind* (f >>> pure*)              ≡⟨⟩
-             bind (f >>> pureT _)                  ≡⟨⟩
+          bind (f >>> pure)                ≡⟨⟩
-             fmap (f >>> pureT B) >>> joinT B     ≡⟨⟩
+          fmap (f >>> pure) >>> join       ≡⟨⟩
-          fmap (f >>> pureT B) >>> joinT B        ≡⟨ cong (λ φ → φ >>> joinT B) R.isDistributive ⟩
+          fmap (f >>> pure) >>> join       ≡⟨ cong (λ φ → φ >>> joinT B) R.isDistributive ⟩
-          fmap f >>> fmap (pureT B) >>> joinT B  ≡⟨ ℂ.isAssociative ⟩
+          fmap f >>> fmap pure >>> join    ≡⟨ ℂ.isAssociative ⟩
-          joinT B <<< fmap (pureT B) <<< fmap f  ≡⟨ cong (λ φ → φ <<< fmap f) (snd isInverse) ⟩
+          join <<< fmap pure <<< fmap f    ≡⟨ cong (λ φ → φ <<< fmap f) (snd isInverse) ⟩
           identity <<< fmap f              ≡⟨ ℂ.leftIdentity ⟩
           fmap f                           ∎
           )
 
-        rawEq : Functor.raw KM.R ≡ Functor.raw R
+        rawEq : Functor.raw R* ≡ Functor.raw R
         RawFunctor.omap (rawEq i) = omapEq i
         RawFunctor.fmap (rawEq i) = fmapEq i
 
-      Req : M.RawMonad.R (backRaw (forth m)) ≡ R
+      Req : Monoidal.RawMonad.R (toMonoidalRaw (toKleisli m)) ≡ R
       Req = Functor≡ rawEq
 
-      pureTEq : M.RawMonad.pureT (backRaw (forth m)) ≡ pureT
+      pureTEq : Monoidal.RawMonad.pureT (toMonoidalRaw (toKleisli m)) ≡ pureT
-      pureTEq = funExt (λ X → refl)
+      pureTEq = refl
 
       pureNTEq : (λ i → NaturalTransformation Functors.identity (Req i))
-        [ M.RawMonad.pureNT (backRaw (forth m)) ≡ pureNT ]
+        [ Monoidal.RawMonad.pureNT (toMonoidalRaw (toKleisli m)) ≡ pureNT ]
       pureNTEq = lemSigP (λ i → propIsNatural Functors.identity (Req i)) _ _ pureTEq
 
-      joinTEq : M.RawMonad.joinT (backRaw (forth m)) ≡ joinT
+      joinTEq : Monoidal.RawMonad.joinT (toMonoidalRaw (toKleisli m)) ≡ joinT
       joinTEq = funExt (λ X → begin
-        M.RawMonad.joinT (backRaw (forth m)) X ≡⟨⟩
+        Monoidal.RawMonad.joinT (toMonoidalRaw (toKleisli m)) X ≡⟨⟩
-        KM.join ≡⟨⟩
+        join* ≡⟨⟩
-        joinT X <<< fmap identity ≡⟨ cong (λ φ → joinT X <<< φ) R.isIdentity ⟩
+        join <<< fmap identity ≡⟨ cong (λ φ → join <<< φ) R.isIdentity ⟩
-        joinT X <<< identity ≡⟨ ℂ.rightIdentity ⟩
+        join <<< identity ≡⟨ ℂ.rightIdentity ⟩
-        joinT X ∎)
+        join ∎)
 
       joinNTEq : (λ i → NaturalTransformation F[ Req i ∘ Req i ] (Req i))
-        [ M.RawMonad.joinNT (backRaw (forth m)) ≡ joinNT ]
+        [ Monoidal.RawMonad.joinNT (toMonoidalRaw (toKleisli m)) ≡ joinNT ]
       joinNTEq = lemSigP (λ i → propIsNatural F[ Req i ∘ Req i ] (Req i)) _ _ joinTEq
 
-      backRawEq : backRaw (forth m) ≡ M.Monad.raw m
+      toMonoidalRawEq : toMonoidalRaw (toKleisli m) ≡ Monoidal.Monad.raw m
-      M.RawMonad.R      (backRawEq i) = Req i
+      Monoidal.RawMonad.R      (toMonoidalRawEq i) = Req i
-      M.RawMonad.pureNT (backRawEq i) = pureNTEq i
+      Monoidal.RawMonad.pureNT (toMonoidalRawEq i) = pureNTEq i
-      M.RawMonad.joinNT (backRawEq i) = joinNTEq i
+      Monoidal.RawMonad.joinNT (toMonoidalRawEq i) = joinNTEq i
 
-    backeq : (m : M.Monad) → back (forth m) ≡ m
+    toMonoidaleq : (m : Monoidal.Monad) → toMonoidal (toKleisli m) ≡ m
-    backeq m = M.Monad≡ (backRawEq m)
+    toMonoidaleq m = Monoidal.Monad≡ (toMonoidalRawEq m)
-
-    eqv : isEquiv M.Monad K.Monad forth
-    eqv = gradLemma forth back fortheq backeq
 
   open import Cat.Equivalence
 
-  Monoidal≊Kleisli : M.Monad ≅ K.Monad
+  Monoidal≊Kleisli : Monoidal.Monad ≅ Kleisli.Monad
-  Monoidal≊Kleisli = forth , back , funExt backeq , funExt fortheq
+  Monoidal≊Kleisli = toKleisli , toMonoidal , funExt toMonoidaleq , funExt toKleislieq
 
-  Monoidal≡Kleisli : M.Monad ≡ K.Monad
+  Monoidal≡Kleisli : Monoidal.Monad ≡ Kleisli.Monad
   Monoidal≡Kleisli = isoToPath Monoidal≊Kleisli
+
+  grpdKleisli : isGrpd Kleisli.Monad
+  grpdKleisli = Kleisli.grpdMonad
+
+  grpdMonoidal : isGrpd Monoidal.Monad
+  grpdMonoidal = subst {P = isGrpd}
+    (sym Monoidal≡Kleisli) grpdKleisli

src/Cat/Category/Monad/Kleisli.agda

@@ -5,6 +5,7 @@ The Kleisli formulation of monads
 open import Agda.Primitive
 
 open import Cat.Prelude
+open import Cat.Equivalence
 
 open import Cat.Category
 open import Cat.Category.Functor as F
@@ -230,6 +231,7 @@ record IsMonad (raw : RawMonad) : Set ℓ where
     m ∎
 
 record Monad : Set ℓ where
+  no-eta-equality
   field
     raw : RawMonad
     isMonad : IsMonad raw
@@ -264,3 +266,82 @@ module _ {m n : Monad} (eq : Monad.raw m ≡ Monad.raw n) where
   Monad≡ : m ≡ n
   Monad.raw     (Monad≡ i) = eq i
   Monad.isMonad (Monad≡ i) = eqIsMonad i
+
+module _ where
+  private
+    module _ (x y : RawMonad) (p q : x ≡ y) (a b : p ≡ q) where
+      eq0-helper : isGrpd (Object → Object)
+      eq0-helper = grpdPi (λ a → ℂ.groupoidObject)
+
+      eq0 : cong (cong RawMonad.omap) a ≡ cong (cong RawMonad.omap) b
+      eq0 = eq0-helper
+        (RawMonad.omap x)             (RawMonad.omap y)
+        (cong RawMonad.omap p)        (cong RawMonad.omap q)
+        (cong (cong RawMonad.omap) a) (cong (cong RawMonad.omap) b)
+
+      eq1-helper : (omap : Object → Object) → isGrpd ({X : Object}   → ℂ [ X , omap X ])
+      eq1-helper f = grpdPiImpl (setGrpd ℂ.arrowsAreSets)
+
+      postulate
+        eq1 : PathP (λ i → PathP
+          (λ j →
+          PathP (λ k → {X : Object} → ℂ [ X , eq0 i j k X ])
+          (RawMonad.pure x) (RawMonad.pure y))
+          (λ i → RawMonad.pure (p i)) (λ i → RawMonad.pure (q i)))
+          (cong-d (cong-d RawMonad.pure) a) (cong-d (cong-d RawMonad.pure) b)
+
+
+    RawMonad' : Set _
+    RawMonad' = Σ (Object → Object) (λ omap
+      → ({X : Object} → ℂ [ X , omap X ])
+      × ({X Y : Object} → ℂ [ X , omap Y ] → ℂ [ omap X , omap Y ])
+      )
+    grpdRawMonad' : isGrpd RawMonad'
+    grpdRawMonad' = grpdSig (grpdPi (λ _ → ℂ.groupoidObject)) λ _ → grpdSig (grpdPiImpl (setGrpd ℂ.arrowsAreSets)) (λ _ → grpdPiImpl (grpdPiImpl (grpdPi (λ _ → setGrpd ℂ.arrowsAreSets))))
+    toRawMonad : RawMonad' → RawMonad
+    RawMonad.omap (toRawMonad (a , b , c)) = a
+    RawMonad.pure (toRawMonad (a , b , c)) = b
+    RawMonad.bind (toRawMonad (a , b , c)) = c
+
+    IsMonad' : RawMonad' → Set _
+    IsMonad' raw = M.IsIdentity × M.IsNatural × M.IsDistributive
+      where
+      module M = RawMonad (toRawMonad raw)
+
+    grpdIsMonad' : (m : RawMonad') → isGrpd (IsMonad' m)
+    grpdIsMonad' m = grpdSig (propGrpd (propIsIdentity (toRawMonad m)))
+      λ _ → grpdSig (propGrpd (propIsNatural (toRawMonad m)))
+      λ _ → propGrpd (propIsDistributive (toRawMonad m))
+
+    Monad' = Σ RawMonad' IsMonad'
+    grpdMonad' = grpdSig grpdRawMonad' grpdIsMonad'
+
+    toMonad : Monad' → Monad
+    Monad.raw (toMonad x) = toRawMonad (fst x)
+    isIdentity (Monad.isMonad (toMonad x)) = fst (snd x)
+    isNatural (Monad.isMonad (toMonad x)) = fst (snd (snd x))
+    isDistributive (Monad.isMonad (toMonad x)) = snd (snd (snd x))
+
+    fromMonad : Monad → Monad'
+    fromMonad m = (M.omap , M.pure , M.bind)
+      , M.isIdentity , M.isNatural , M.isDistributive
+      where
+      module M = Monad m
+
+    e : Monad' ≃ Monad
+    e = fromIsomorphism _ _ (toMonad , fromMonad , (funExt λ _ → refl) , funExt eta-refl)
+      where
+      -- Monads don't have eta-equality
+      eta-refl : (x : Monad) → toMonad (fromMonad x) ≡ x
+      eta-refl =
+        (λ x → λ
+          { i .Monad.raw → Monad.raw x
+          ; i .Monad.isMonad  → Monad.isMonad x}
+        )
+
+  grpdMonad : isGrpd Monad
+  grpdMonad = equivPreservesNType
+    {n = (S (S (S ⟨-2⟩)))}
+    e grpdMonad'
+    where
+    open import Cubical.NType

src/Cat/Category/Monad/Monoidal.agda

@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ private
 
 open Category ℂ using (Object ; Arrow ; identity ; _<<<_)
 open import Cat.Category.NaturalTransformation ℂ ℂ
-  using (NaturalTransformation ; Transformation ; Natural)
+  using (NaturalTransformation ; Transformation ; Natural ; NaturalTransformation≡)
 
 record RawMonad : Set ℓ where
   field
@@ -78,15 +78,39 @@ record IsMonad (raw : RawMonad) : Set ℓ where
 
   isNatural : IsNatural
   isNatural {X} {Y} f = begin
-    joinT Y <<< R.fmap f <<< pureT X     ≡⟨ sym ℂ.isAssociative ⟩
+    join <<< fmap f <<< pure     ≡⟨ sym ℂ.isAssociative ⟩
-    joinT Y <<< (R.fmap f <<< pureT X)   ≡⟨ cong (λ φ → joinT Y <<< φ) (sym (pureN f)) ⟩
+    join <<< (fmap f <<< pure)   ≡⟨ cong (λ φ → join <<< φ) (sym (pureN f)) ⟩
-    joinT Y <<< (pureT (R.omap Y) <<< f) ≡⟨ ℂ.isAssociative ⟩
+    join <<< (pure <<< f)        ≡⟨ ℂ.isAssociative ⟩
-    joinT Y <<< pureT (R.omap Y) <<< f   ≡⟨ cong (λ φ → φ <<< f) (fst isInverse) ⟩
+    join <<< pure <<< f          ≡⟨ cong (λ φ → φ <<< f) (fst isInverse) ⟩
     identity <<< f               ≡⟨ ℂ.leftIdentity ⟩
     f                            ∎
 
   isDistributive : IsDistributive
-  isDistributive {X} {Y} {Z} g f = sym aux
+  isDistributive {X} {Y} {Z} g f = begin
+       join <<< fmap g <<< (join <<< fmap f)
+       ≡⟨ Category.isAssociative ℂ ⟩
+       join <<< fmap g <<< join <<< fmap f
+       ≡⟨ cong (_<<< fmap f) (sym ℂ.isAssociative) ⟩
+       (join <<< (fmap g <<< join)) <<< fmap f
+       ≡⟨ cong (λ φ → φ <<< fmap f) (cong (_<<<_ join) (sym (joinN g))) ⟩
+       (join <<< (join <<< R².fmap g)) <<< fmap f
+       ≡⟨ cong (_<<< fmap f) ℂ.isAssociative ⟩
+       ((join <<< join) <<< R².fmap g) <<< fmap f
+       ≡⟨⟩
+       join <<< join <<< R².fmap g <<< fmap f
+       ≡⟨ sym ℂ.isAssociative ⟩
+       (join <<< join) <<< (R².fmap g <<< fmap f)
+       ≡⟨ cong (λ φ → φ <<< (R².fmap g <<< fmap f)) (sym isAssociative) ⟩
+       (join <<< fmap join) <<< (R².fmap g <<< fmap f)
+       ≡⟨ sym ℂ.isAssociative ⟩
+       join <<< (fmap join <<< (R².fmap g <<< fmap f))
+       ≡⟨ cong (_<<<_ join) ℂ.isAssociative ⟩
+       join <<< (fmap join <<< R².fmap g <<< fmap f)
+       ≡⟨⟩
+       join <<< (fmap join <<< fmap (fmap g) <<< fmap f)
+       ≡⟨ cong (λ φ → join <<< φ) (sym distrib3) ⟩
+       join <<< fmap (join <<< fmap g <<< f)
+       ∎
     where
     module R² = Functor F[ R ∘ R ]
     distrib3 : ∀ {A B C D} {a : Arrow C D} {b : Arrow B C} {c : Arrow A B}
@@ -96,33 +120,9 @@ record IsMonad (raw : RawMonad) : Set ℓ where
       R.fmap (a <<< b <<< c)              ≡⟨ R.isDistributive ⟩
       R.fmap (a <<< b) <<< R.fmap c       ≡⟨ cong (_<<< _) R.isDistributive ⟩
       R.fmap a <<< R.fmap b <<< R.fmap c  ∎
-    aux = begin
-      joinT Z <<< R.fmap (joinT Z <<< R.fmap g <<< f)
-        ≡⟨ cong (λ φ → joinT Z <<< φ) distrib3 ⟩
-      joinT Z <<< (R.fmap (joinT Z) <<< R.fmap (R.fmap g) <<< R.fmap f)
-        ≡⟨⟩
-      joinT Z <<< (R.fmap (joinT Z) <<< R².fmap g <<< R.fmap f)
-        ≡⟨ cong (_<<<_ (joinT Z)) (sym ℂ.isAssociative) ⟩
-      joinT Z <<< (R.fmap (joinT Z) <<< (R².fmap g <<< R.fmap f))
-        ≡⟨ ℂ.isAssociative ⟩
-      (joinT Z <<< R.fmap (joinT Z)) <<< (R².fmap g <<< R.fmap f)
-        ≡⟨ cong (λ φ → φ <<< (R².fmap g <<< R.fmap f)) isAssociative ⟩
-      (joinT Z <<< joinT (R.omap Z)) <<< (R².fmap g <<< R.fmap f)
-        ≡⟨ ℂ.isAssociative ⟩
-      joinT Z <<< joinT (R.omap Z) <<< R².fmap g <<< R.fmap f
-        ≡⟨⟩
-      ((joinT Z <<< joinT (R.omap Z)) <<< R².fmap g) <<< R.fmap f
-        ≡⟨ cong (_<<< R.fmap f) (sym ℂ.isAssociative) ⟩
-      (joinT Z <<< (joinT (R.omap Z) <<< R².fmap g)) <<< R.fmap f
-        ≡⟨ cong (λ φ → φ <<< R.fmap f) (cong (_<<<_ (joinT Z)) (joinN g)) ⟩
-      (joinT Z <<< (R.fmap g <<< joinT Y)) <<< R.fmap f
-        ≡⟨ cong (_<<< R.fmap f) ℂ.isAssociative ⟩
-      joinT Z <<< R.fmap g <<< joinT Y <<< R.fmap f
-        ≡⟨ sym (Category.isAssociative ℂ) ⟩
-      joinT Z <<< R.fmap g <<< (joinT Y <<< R.fmap f)
-        ∎
 
 record Monad : Set ℓ where
+  no-eta-equality
   field
     raw     : RawMonad
     isMonad : IsMonad raw

src/Cat/Category/Monad/Voevodsky.agda

@@ -1,15 +1,18 @@
 {-
 This module provides construction 2.3 in [voe]
 -}
-{-# OPTIONS --cubical --caching #-}
+{-# OPTIONS --cubical #-}
 module Cat.Category.Monad.Voevodsky where
 
 open import Cat.Prelude
+open import Cat.Equivalence
 
 open import Cat.Category
 open import Cat.Category.Functor as F
 import Cat.Category.NaturalTransformation
 open import Cat.Category.Monad
+import Cat.Category.Monad.Monoidal as Monoidal
+import Cat.Category.Monad.Kleisli as Kleisli
 open import Cat.Categories.Fun
 open import Cat.Equivalence
 
@@ -24,6 +27,7 @@ module voe {ℓa ℓb : Level} (ℂ : Category ℓa ℓb) where
 
   module §2-3 (omap : Object → Object) (pure : {X : Object} → Arrow X (omap X)) where
     record §1 : Set ℓ where
+      no-eta-equality
       open M
 
       field
@@ -74,12 +78,11 @@ module voe {ℓa ℓb : Level} (ℂ : Category ℓa ℓb) where
         isMonad : IsMonad rawMnd
 
       toMonad : Monad
-      toMonad = record
+      toMonad .Monad.raw = rawMnd
-        { raw     = rawMnd
+      toMonad .Monad.isMonad = isMonad
-        ; isMonad = isMonad
-        }
 
     record §2 : Set ℓ where
+      no-eta-equality
       open K
 
       field
@@ -96,28 +99,24 @@ module voe {ℓa ℓb : Level} (ℂ : Category ℓa ℓb) where
         isMonad : IsMonad rawMnd
 
       toMonad : Monad
-      toMonad = record
+      toMonad .Monad.raw     = rawMnd
-        { raw     = rawMnd
+      toMonad .Monad.isMonad = isMonad
-        ; isMonad = isMonad
-        }
 
-  §1-fromMonad : (m : M.Monad) → §2-3.§1 (M.Monad.Romap m) (λ {X} → M.Monad.pureT m X)
+  module _ (m : M.Monad) where
-  §1-fromMonad m = record
-    { fmap       = Functor.fmap R
-    ; RisFunctor = Functor.isFunctor R
-    ; pureN      = pureN
-    ; join       = λ {X} → joinT X
-    ; joinN      = joinN
-    ; isMonad    = M.Monad.isMonad m
-    }
-    where
     open M.Monad m
 
+    §1-fromMonad : §2-3.§1 (M.Monad.Romap m) (λ {X} → M.Monad.pureT m X)
+    §1-fromMonad .§2-3.§1.fmap       = Functor.fmap R
+    §1-fromMonad .§2-3.§1.RisFunctor = Functor.isFunctor R
+    §1-fromMonad .§2-3.§1.pureN      = pureN
+    §1-fromMonad .§2-3.§1.join      {X} = joinT X
+    §1-fromMonad .§2-3.§1.joinN      = joinN
+    §1-fromMonad .§2-3.§1.isMonad    = M.Monad.isMonad m
+
+
   §2-fromMonad : (m : K.Monad) → §2-3.§2 (K.Monad.omap m) (K.Monad.pure m)
-  §2-fromMonad m = record
+  §2-fromMonad m .§2-3.§2.bind    = K.Monad.bind    m
-    { bind    = K.Monad.bind    m
+  §2-fromMonad m  .§2-3.§2.isMonad = K.Monad.isMonad m
-    ; isMonad = K.Monad.isMonad m
-    }
 
   -- | In the following we seek to transform the equivalence `Monoidal≃Kleisli`
   -- | to talk about voevodsky's construction.
@@ -145,67 +144,103 @@ module voe {ℓa ℓb : Level} (ℂ : Category ℓa ℓb) where
 
       forthEq : ∀ m → (forth ∘ back) m ≡ m
       forthEq m = begin
-        (forth ∘ back) m ≡⟨⟩
+       §2-fromMonad
-        -- In full gory detail:
+         (Monoidal→Kleisli
-        ( §2-fromMonad
+          (§2-3.§1.toMonad
-        ∘ Monoidal→Kleisli
+           (§1-fromMonad (Kleisli→Monoidal (§2-3.§2.toMonad m)))))
-        ∘ §2-3.§1.toMonad
+         ≡⟨ cong-d (§2-fromMonad ∘ Monoidal→Kleisli) (lemmaz (Kleisli→Monoidal (§2-3.§2.toMonad m))) ⟩
-        ∘ §1-fromMonad
+       §2-fromMonad
-        ∘ Kleisli→Monoidal
+         ((Monoidal→Kleisli ∘ Kleisli→Monoidal)
-        ∘ §2-3.§2.toMonad
+          (§2-3.§2.toMonad m))
-        ) m ≡⟨⟩ -- fromMonad and toMonad are inverses
+         -- Below is the fully normalized goal and context with
-        ( §2-fromMonad
+         -- `funExt` made abstract.
-        ∘ Monoidal→Kleisli
+         --
-        ∘ Kleisli→Monoidal
+         -- Goal: PathP (λ _ → §2-3.§2 omap (λ {z} → pure))
-        ∘ §2-3.§2.toMonad
+         --       (§2-fromMonad
-        ) m ≡⟨ cong (λ φ → φ m) t ⟩
+         --        (.Cat.Category.Monad.toKleisli ℂ
-        -- Monoidal→Kleisli and Kleisli→Monoidal are inverses
+         --         (.Cat.Category.Monad.toMonoidal ℂ (§2-3.§2.toMonad m))))
-        -- I should be able to prove this using congruence and `lem` below.
+         --       (§2-fromMonad (§2-3.§2.toMonad m))
-        ( §2-fromMonad
+         -- Have: PathP
-        ∘ §2-3.§2.toMonad
+         --       (λ i →
-        ) m ≡⟨⟩
+         --          §2-3.§2 K.IsMonad.omap
-        (  §2-fromMonad
+         --          (K.RawMonad.pure
-        ∘ §2-3.§2.toMonad
+         --           (K.Monad.raw
-        ) m ≡⟨⟩ -- fromMonad and toMonad are inverses
+         --            (funExt (λ m₁ → K.Monad≡ (.Cat.Category.Monad.toKleisliRawEq ℂ m₁))
+         --             i (§2-3.§2.toMonad m)))))
+         --       (§2-fromMonad
+         --        (.Cat.Category.Monad.toKleisli ℂ
+         --         (.Cat.Category.Monad.toMonoidal ℂ (§2-3.§2.toMonad m))))
+         --       (§2-fromMonad (§2-3.§2.toMonad m))
+         ≡⟨ ( cong-d {x = Monoidal→Kleisli ∘ Kleisli→Monoidal} {y = idFun K.Monad} (\ φ → §2-fromMonad (φ (§2-3.§2.toMonad m))) re-ve) ⟩
+       (§2-fromMonad ∘ §2-3.§2.toMonad) m
+         ≡⟨ lemma ⟩
        m ∎
         where
-        t' : ((Monoidal→Kleisli ∘ Kleisli→Monoidal) ∘ §2-3.§2.toMonad {omap} {pure})
+        lemma : (§2-fromMonad ∘ §2-3.§2.toMonad) m ≡ m
-          ≡ §2-3.§2.toMonad
+        §2-3.§2.bind (lemma i) = §2-3.§2.bind m
-        t' = cong (\ φ → φ ∘ §2-3.§2.toMonad) re-ve
+        §2-3.§2.isMonad (lemma i) = §2-3.§2.isMonad m
-        t : (§2-fromMonad ∘ (Monoidal→Kleisli ∘ Kleisli→Monoidal) ∘ §2-3.§2.toMonad {omap} {pure})
+        lemmaz : ∀ m → §2-3.§1.toMonad (§1-fromMonad m) ≡ m
-          ≡ (§2-fromMonad ∘ §2-3.§2.toMonad)
+        M.Monad.raw (lemmaz m i) = M.Monad.raw m
-        t = cong-d (\ f → §2-fromMonad ∘ f) t'
+        M.Monad.isMonad (lemmaz m i) = M.Monad.isMonad m
-        u : (§2-fromMonad ∘ (Monoidal→Kleisli ∘ Kleisli→Monoidal) ∘ §2-3.§2.toMonad) m
-          ≡ (§2-fromMonad ∘ §2-3.§2.toMonad) m
-        u = cong (\ φ → φ m) t
 
       backEq : ∀ m → (back ∘ forth) m ≡ m
       backEq m = begin
-        (back ∘ forth) m ≡⟨⟩
+        §1-fromMonad
-        ( §1-fromMonad
+        (Kleisli→Monoidal
-        ∘ Kleisli→Monoidal
+        (§2-3.§2.toMonad
-        ∘ §2-3.§2.toMonad
+        (§2-fromMonad (Monoidal→Kleisli (§2-3.§1.toMonad m)))))
-        ∘ §2-fromMonad
+          ≡⟨ cong-d (§1-fromMonad ∘ Kleisli→Monoidal) (lemma (Monoidal→Kleisli (§2-3.§1.toMonad m))) ⟩
-        ∘ Monoidal→Kleisli
+        §1-fromMonad
-        ∘ §2-3.§1.toMonad
+        ((Kleisli→Monoidal ∘ Monoidal→Kleisli)
-        ) m ≡⟨⟩ -- fromMonad and toMonad are inverses
+        (§2-3.§1.toMonad m))
-        ( §1-fromMonad
+          -- Below is the fully normalized `agda2-goal-and-context`
-        ∘ Kleisli→Monoidal
+          -- with `funExt` made abstract.
-        ∘ Monoidal→Kleisli
+          --
-        ∘ §2-3.§1.toMonad
+          -- Goal: PathP (λ _ → §2-3.§1 omap (λ {X} → pure))
-        ) m ≡⟨ cong (λ φ → φ m) t ⟩ -- Monoidal→Kleisli and Kleisli→Monoidal are inverses
+          --       (§1-fromMonad
-        ( §1-fromMonad
+          --        (.Cat.Category.Monad.toMonoidal ℂ
-        ∘ §2-3.§1.toMonad
+          --         (.Cat.Category.Monad.toKleisli ℂ (§2-3.§1.toMonad m))))
-        ) m ≡⟨⟩ -- fromMonad and toMonad are inverses
+          --       (§1-fromMonad (§2-3.§1.toMonad m))
+          -- Have: PathP
+          --       (λ i →
+          --          §2-3.§1
+          --          (RawFunctor.omap
+          --           (Functor.raw
+          --            (M.RawMonad.R
+          --             (M.Monad.raw
+          --              (funExt
+          --               (λ m₁ → M.Monad≡ (.Cat.Category.Monad.toMonoidalRawEq ℂ m₁)) i
+          --               (§2-3.§1.toMonad m))))))
+          --          (λ {X} →
+          --             fst
+          --             (M.RawMonad.pureNT
+          --              (M.Monad.raw
+          --               (funExt
+          --                (λ m₁ → M.Monad≡ (.Cat.Category.Monad.toMonoidalRawEq ℂ m₁)) i
+          --                (§2-3.§1.toMonad m))))
+          --             X))
+          --       (§1-fromMonad
+          --        (.Cat.Category.Monad.toMonoidal ℂ
+          --         (.Cat.Category.Monad.toKleisli ℂ (§2-3.§1.toMonad m))))
+          --       (§1-fromMonad (§2-3.§1.toMonad m))
+          ≡⟨ (cong-d (\ φ → §1-fromMonad (φ (§2-3.§1.toMonad m))) ve-re) ⟩
+        §1-fromMonad (§2-3.§1.toMonad m)
+          ≡⟨ lemmaz ⟩
         m ∎
        where
-        t : §1-fromMonad ∘ Kleisli→Monoidal ∘ Monoidal→Kleisli ∘ §2-3.§1.toMonad
+        lemmaz : §1-fromMonad (§2-3.§1.toMonad m) ≡ m
-          ≡ §1-fromMonad ∘ §2-3.§1.toMonad
+        §2-3.§1.fmap (lemmaz i) = §2-3.§1.fmap m
-        -- Why does `re-ve` not satisfy this goal?
+        §2-3.§1.join (lemmaz i) = §2-3.§1.join m
-        t i m = §1-fromMonad (ve-re i (§2-3.§1.toMonad m))
+        §2-3.§1.RisFunctor (lemmaz i) = §2-3.§1.RisFunctor m
-
+        §2-3.§1.pureN (lemmaz i) = §2-3.§1.pureN m
-      voe-isEquiv : isEquiv (§2-3.§1 omap pure) (§2-3.§2 omap pure) forth
+        §2-3.§1.joinN (lemmaz i) = §2-3.§1.joinN m
-      voe-isEquiv = gradLemma forth back forthEq backEq
+        §2-3.§1.isMonad (lemmaz i) = §2-3.§1.isMonad m
+        lemma : ∀ m → §2-3.§2.toMonad (§2-fromMonad m) ≡ m
+        K.Monad.raw (lemma m i) = K.Monad.raw m
+        K.Monad.isMonad (lemma m i) = K.Monad.isMonad m
 
     equiv-2-3 : §2-3.§1 omap pure ≃ §2-3.§2 omap pure
-    equiv-2-3 = forth , voe-isEquiv
+    equiv-2-3 = fromIsomorphism _ _
+      ( forth , back
+      , funExt backEq , funExt forthEq
+      )

src/Cat/Category/Product.agda

@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ module _ {ℓa ℓb : Level} (ℂ : Category ℓa ℓb) where
 
   module _ (A B : Object) where
     record RawProduct : Set (ℓa ⊔ ℓb) where
-      no-eta-equality
+    --  no-eta-equality
       field
         object : Object
         fst  : ℂ [ object , A ]
@@ -55,16 +55,18 @@ module _ {ℓa ℓb : Level} (ℂ : Category ℓa ℓb) where
         ×  ℂ [ g ∘ snd ]
         ]
 
-module _ {ℓa ℓb : Level} {ℂ : Category ℓa ℓb} {A B : Category.Object ℂ} where
+module _ {ℓa ℓb : Level} {ℂ : Category ℓa ℓb}
+  (let module ℂ = Category ℂ) {𝒜 ℬ : ℂ.Object} where
   private
-    open Category ℂ
+    module _ (raw : RawProduct ℂ 𝒜 ℬ) where
-    module _ (raw : RawProduct ℂ A B) where
+      private
-      module _ (x y : IsProduct ℂ A B raw) where
+        open Category ℂ hiding (raw)
+        module _ (x y : IsProduct ℂ 𝒜 ℬ raw) where
           private
             module x = IsProduct x
             module y = IsProduct y
 
-        module _ {X : Object} (f : ℂ [ X , A ]) (g : ℂ [ X , B ]) where
+          module _ {X : Object} (f : ℂ [ X , 𝒜 ]) (g : ℂ [ X , ℬ ]) where
             module _ (f×g : Arrow X y.object) where
               help : isProp (∀{y} → (ℂ [ y.fst ∘ y ] ≡ f) P.× (ℂ [ y.snd ∘ y ] ≡ g) → f×g ≡ y)
               help = propPiImpl (λ _ → propPi (λ _ → arrowsAreSets _ _))
@@ -77,188 +79,22 @@ module _ {ℓa ℓb : Level} {ℂ : Category ℓa ℓb} {A B : Category.Object
           propIsProduct' : x ≡ y
           propIsProduct' i = record { ump = λ f g → prodAux f g i }
 
-      propIsProduct : isProp (IsProduct ℂ A B raw)
+      propIsProduct : isProp (IsProduct ℂ 𝒜 ℬ raw)
       propIsProduct = propIsProduct'
 
-  Product≡ : {x y : Product ℂ A B} → (Product.raw x ≡ Product.raw y) → x ≡ y
+    Product≡ : {x y : Product ℂ 𝒜 ℬ} → (Product.raw x ≡ Product.raw y) → x ≡ y
     Product≡ {x} {y} p i = record { raw = p i ; isProduct = q i }
       where
-    q : (λ i → IsProduct ℂ A B (p i)) [ Product.isProduct x ≡ Product.isProduct y ]
+      q : (λ i → IsProduct ℂ 𝒜 ℬ (p i)) [ Product.isProduct x ≡ Product.isProduct y ]
       q = lemPropF propIsProduct p
 
-module Try0 {ℓa ℓb : Level} {ℂ : Category ℓa ℓb}
-  (let module ℂ = Category ℂ) {𝒜 ℬ : ℂ.Object} where
-
     open P
+    open import Cat.Categories.Span
 
-  module _ where
+    open Category (span ℂ 𝒜 ℬ)
-    raw : RawCategory _ _
-    raw = record
-      { Object = Σ[ X ∈ ℂ.Object ] ℂ.Arrow X 𝒜 × ℂ.Arrow X ℬ
-      ; Arrow = λ{ (A , a0 , a1) (B , b0 , b1)
-        → Σ[ f ∈ ℂ.Arrow A B ]
-            ℂ [ b0 ∘ f ] ≡ a0
-          × ℂ [ b1 ∘ f ] ≡ a1
-          }
-      ; identity = λ{ {X , f , g} → ℂ.identity {X} , ℂ.rightIdentity , ℂ.rightIdentity}
-      ; _<<<_ = λ { {_ , a0 , a1} {_ , b0 , b1} {_ , c0 , c1} (f , f0 , f1) (g , g0 , g1)
-        → (f ℂ.<<< g)
-          , (begin
-              ℂ [ c0 ∘ ℂ [ f ∘ g ] ] ≡⟨ ℂ.isAssociative ⟩
-              ℂ [ ℂ [ c0 ∘ f ] ∘ g ] ≡⟨ cong (λ φ → ℂ [ φ ∘ g ]) f0 ⟩
-              ℂ [ b0 ∘ g ] ≡⟨ g0 ⟩
-              a0 ∎
-            )
-          , (begin
-             ℂ [ c1 ∘ ℂ [ f ∘ g ] ] ≡⟨ ℂ.isAssociative ⟩
-             ℂ [ ℂ [ c1 ∘ f ] ∘ g ] ≡⟨ cong (λ φ → ℂ [ φ ∘ g ]) f1 ⟩
-             ℂ [ b1 ∘ g ] ≡⟨ g1 ⟩
-              a1 ∎
-            )
-        }
-      }
-
-    module _ where
-      open RawCategory raw
-
-      propEqs : ∀ {X' : Object}{Y' : Object} (let X , xa , xb = X') (let Y , ya , yb = Y')
-                  → (xy : ℂ.Arrow X Y) → isProp (ℂ [ ya ∘ xy ] ≡ xa × ℂ [ yb ∘ xy ] ≡ xb)
-      propEqs xs = propSig (ℂ.arrowsAreSets _ _) (\ _ → ℂ.arrowsAreSets _ _)
-
-      arrowEq : {X Y : Object} {f g : Arrow X Y} → fst f ≡ fst g → f ≡ g
-      arrowEq {X} {Y} {f} {g} p = λ i → p i , lemPropF propEqs p {snd f} {snd g} i
-
-      private
-        isAssociative : IsAssociative
-        isAssociative {f = f , f0 , f1} {g , g0 , g1} {h , h0 , h1} = arrowEq ℂ.isAssociative
-
-        isIdentity : IsIdentity identity
-        isIdentity {AA@(A , a0 , a1)} {BB@(B , b0 , b1)} {f , f0 , f1} = arrowEq ℂ.leftIdentity , arrowEq ℂ.rightIdentity
-
-        arrowsAreSets : ArrowsAreSets
-        arrowsAreSets {X , x0 , x1} {Y , y0 , y1}
-          = sigPresSet ℂ.arrowsAreSets λ a → propSet (propEqs _)
-
-      isPreCat : IsPreCategory raw
-      IsPreCategory.isAssociative isPreCat = isAssociative
-      IsPreCategory.isIdentity    isPreCat = isIdentity
-      IsPreCategory.arrowsAreSets isPreCat = arrowsAreSets
-
-    open IsPreCategory isPreCat
-
-    module _ {𝕏 𝕐 : Object} where
-      open Σ 𝕏 renaming (fst to X ; snd to x)
-      open Σ x renaming (fst to xa ; snd to xb)
-      open Σ 𝕐 renaming (fst to Y ; snd to y)
-      open Σ y renaming (fst to ya ; snd to yb)
-      open import Cat.Equivalence using (composeIso) renaming (_≅_ to _≅_)
-      step0
-        : ((X , xa , xb) ≡ (Y , ya , yb))
-        ≅ (Σ[ p ∈ (X ≡ Y) ] (PathP (λ i → ℂ.Arrow (p i) 𝒜) xa ya) × (PathP (λ i → ℂ.Arrow (p i) ℬ) xb yb))
-      step0
-        = (λ p → cong fst p , cong-d (fst ∘ snd) p , cong-d (snd ∘ snd) p)
-        -- , (λ x  → λ i → fst x i , (fst (snd x) i) , (snd (snd x) i))
-        , (λ{ (p , q , r) → Σ≡ p λ i → q i , r i})
-        , funExt (λ{ p → refl})
-        , funExt (λ{ (p , q , r) → refl})
-
-      step1
-        : (Σ[ p ∈ (X ≡ Y) ] (PathP (λ i → ℂ.Arrow (p i) 𝒜) xa ya) × (PathP (λ i → ℂ.Arrow (p i) ℬ) xb yb))
-        ≅ Σ (X ℂ.≊ Y) (λ iso
-          → let p = ℂ.isoToId iso
-          in
-          ( PathP (λ i → ℂ.Arrow (p i) 𝒜) xa ya)
-          × PathP (λ i → ℂ.Arrow (p i) ℬ) xb yb
-          )
-      step1
-        = symIso
-            (isoSigFst
-              {A = (X ℂ.≊ Y)}
-              {B = (X ≡ Y)}
-              (ℂ.groupoidObject _ _)
-              {Q = \ p → (PathP (λ i → ℂ.Arrow (p i) 𝒜) xa ya) × (PathP (λ i → ℂ.Arrow (p i) ℬ) xb yb)}
-              ℂ.isoToId
-              (symIso (_ , ℂ.asTypeIso {X} {Y}) .snd)
-            )
-
-      step2
-        : Σ (X ℂ.≊ Y) (λ iso
-          → let p = ℂ.isoToId iso
-          in
-          ( PathP (λ i → ℂ.Arrow (p i) 𝒜) xa ya)
-          × PathP (λ i → ℂ.Arrow (p i) ℬ) xb yb
-          )
-        ≅ ((X , xa , xb) ≊ (Y , ya , yb))
-      step2
-        = ( λ{ (iso@(f , f~ , inv-f) , p , q)
-            → ( f  , sym (ℂ.domain-twist-sym  iso p) , sym (ℂ.domain-twist-sym iso q))
-            , ( f~ , sym (ℂ.domain-twist      iso p) , sym (ℂ.domain-twist     iso q))
-            , arrowEq (fst inv-f)
-            , arrowEq (snd inv-f)
-            }
-          )
-        , (λ{ (f , f~ , inv-f , inv-f~) →
-          let
-            iso : X ℂ.≊ Y
-            iso = fst f , fst f~ , cong fst inv-f , cong fst inv-f~
-            p : X ≡ Y
-            p = ℂ.isoToId iso
-            pA : ℂ.Arrow X 𝒜 ≡ ℂ.Arrow Y 𝒜
-            pA = cong (λ x → ℂ.Arrow x 𝒜) p
-            pB : ℂ.Arrow X ℬ ≡ ℂ.Arrow Y ℬ
-            pB = cong (λ x → ℂ.Arrow x ℬ) p
-            k0 = begin
-              coe pB xb ≡⟨ ℂ.coe-dom iso ⟩
-              xb ℂ.<<< fst f~ ≡⟨ snd (snd f~) ⟩
-              yb ∎
-            k1 = begin
-              coe pA xa ≡⟨ ℂ.coe-dom iso ⟩
-              xa ℂ.<<< fst f~ ≡⟨ fst (snd f~) ⟩
-              ya ∎
-          in iso , coe-lem-inv k1 , coe-lem-inv k0})
-        , funExt (λ x → lemSig
-            (λ x → propSig prop0 (λ _ → prop1))
-            _ _
-            (Σ≡ refl (ℂ.propIsomorphism _ _ _)))
-        , funExt (λ{ (f , _) → lemSig propIsomorphism _ _ (Σ≡ refl (propEqs _ _ _))})
-          where
-          prop0 : ∀ {x} → isProp (PathP (λ i → ℂ.Arrow (ℂ.isoToId x i) 𝒜) xa ya)
-          prop0 {x} = pathJ (λ y p → ∀ x → isProp (PathP (λ i → ℂ.Arrow (p i) 𝒜) xa x)) (λ x → ℂ.arrowsAreSets _ _) Y (ℂ.isoToId x) ya
-          prop1 : ∀ {x} → isProp (PathP (λ i → ℂ.Arrow (ℂ.isoToId x i) ℬ) xb yb)
-          prop1 {x} = pathJ (λ y p → ∀ x → isProp (PathP (λ i → ℂ.Arrow (p i) ℬ) xb x)) (λ x → ℂ.arrowsAreSets _ _) Y (ℂ.isoToId x) yb
-      -- One thing to watch out for here is that the isomorphisms going forwards
-      -- must compose to give idToIso
-      iso
-        : ((X , xa , xb) ≡ (Y , ya , yb))
-        ≅ ((X , xa , xb) ≊ (Y , ya , yb))
-      iso = step0 ⊙ step1 ⊙ step2
-        where
-        infixl 5 _⊙_
-        _⊙_ = composeIso
-      equiv1
-        : ((X , xa , xb) ≡ (Y , ya , yb))
-        ≃ ((X , xa , xb) ≊ (Y , ya , yb))
-      equiv1 = _ , fromIso _ _ (snd iso)
-
-    univalent : Univalent
-    univalent = univalenceFrom≃ equiv1
-
-    isCat : IsCategory raw
-    IsCategory.isPreCategory isCat = isPreCat
-    IsCategory.univalent     isCat = univalent
-
-    cat : Category _ _
-    cat = record
-      { raw = raw
-      ; isCategory = isCat
-      }
-
-  open Category cat
 
     lemma : Terminal ≃ Product ℂ 𝒜 ℬ
     lemma = fromIsomorphism Terminal (Product ℂ 𝒜 ℬ) (f , g , inv)
-  -- C-x 8 RET MATHEMATICAL BOLD SCRIPT CAPITAL A
-  -- 𝒜
       where
       f : Terminal → Product ℂ 𝒜 ℬ
       f ((X , x0 , x1) , uniq) = p
@@ -348,10 +184,7 @@ module _ {ℓa ℓb : Level} {ℂ : Category ℓa ℓb} {A B : Category.Object
         module y = HasProducts y
 
       productEq : x.product ≡ y.product
-      productEq = funExt λ A → funExt λ B → Try0.propProduct _ _
+      productEq = funExt λ A → funExt λ B → propProduct _ _
 
   propHasProducts : isProp (HasProducts ℂ)
   propHasProducts x y i = record { product = productEq x y i }
-
-fmap≡ : {A : Set} {a0 a1 : A} {B : Set} → (f : A → B) → Path a0 a1 → Path (f a0) (f a1)
-fmap≡ = cong

src/Cat/Category/Yoneda.agda

@@ -9,9 +9,9 @@ open import Cat.Category.Functor
 open import Cat.Category.NaturalTransformation
   renaming (module Properties to F)
   using ()
-
+open import Cat.Categories.Opposite
-open import Cat.Categories.Fun using (module Fun)
 open import Cat.Categories.Sets hiding (presheaf)
+open import Cat.Categories.Fun using (module Fun)
 
 -- There is no (small) category of categories. So we won't use _⇑_ from
 -- `HasExponential`

src/Cat/Prelude.agda

@@ -105,3 +105,38 @@ module _ {ℓ : Level} {A : Set ℓ} where
   ntypeCumulative : ∀ {n m} → n ≤′ m → HasLevel ⟨ n ⟩₋₂ A → HasLevel ⟨ m ⟩₋₂ A
   ntypeCumulative {m}         ≤′-refl      lvl = lvl
   ntypeCumulative {n} {suc m} (≤′-step le) lvl = HasLevel+1 ⟨ m ⟩₋₂ (ntypeCumulative le lvl)
+
+  grpdPi : {ℓb : Level} {B : A → Set ℓb}
+    → ((a : A) → isGrpd (B a)) → isGrpd ((a : A) → (B a))
+  grpdPi = piPresNType (S (S (S ⟨-2⟩)))
+
+  grpdPiImpl : {ℓb : Level} {B : A → Set ℓb}
+    → ({a : A} → isGrpd (B a)) → isGrpd ({a : A} → (B a))
+  grpdPiImpl {B = B} g = equivPreservesNType {A = Expl} {B = Impl} {n = one} e (grpdPi (λ a → g))
+    where
+    one = (S (S (S ⟨-2⟩)))
+    t : ({a : A} → HasLevel one (B a))
+    t = g
+    Impl = {a : A} → B a
+    Expl = (a : A) → B a
+    expl : Impl → Expl
+    expl f a = f {a}
+    impl : Expl → Impl
+    impl f {a} = f a
+    e : Expl ≃ Impl
+    e = impl , (gradLemma impl expl (λ f → refl) (λ f → refl))
+
+  setGrpd : isSet A → isGrpd A
+  setGrpd = ntypeCumulative
+    {suc (suc zero)} {suc (suc (suc zero))}
+    (≤′-step ≤′-refl)
+
+  propGrpd : isProp A → isGrpd A
+  propGrpd = ntypeCumulative
+    {suc zero} {suc (suc (suc zero))}
+    (≤′-step (≤′-step ≤′-refl))
+
+module _ {ℓa ℓb : Level} {A : Set ℓa} {B : A → Set ℓb} where
+  open TLevel
+  grpdSig : isGrpd A → (∀ a → isGrpd (B a)) → isGrpd (Σ A B)
+  grpdSig = sigPresNType {n = S (S (S ⟨-2⟩))}