open import 1Lab.Equiv.Embedding
open import 1Lab.Equiv.Fibrewise
open import 1Lab.HLevel.Retracts
open import 1Lab.Path.Groupoid
open import 1Lab.Type.Sigma
open import 1Lab.Univalence
open import 1Lab.Type.Pi
open import 1Lab.HLevel
open import 1Lab.Equiv
open import 1Lab.Path
open import 1Lab.Type

open import Data.Dec.Base

module 1Lab.Path.IdentitySystem where

Identity systems🔗

An identity system is a way of characterising the path spaces of a particular type, without necessarily having to construct a full encode-decode equaivalence. Essentially, the data of an identity system is precisely the data required to implement path induction, a.k.a. the J eliminator. Any type with the data of an identity system satisfies its own J, and conversely, if the type satisfies J, it is an identity system.

We unravel the definition of being an identity system into the following data, using a translation that takes advantage of cubical type theory’s native support for paths-over-paths:

record
  is-identity-system {ℓ ℓ′} {A : Type ℓ}
    (R : A → A → Type ℓ′)
    (refl : ∀ a → R a a)
    : Type (ℓ ⊔ ℓ′)
  where
  no-eta-equality
  field
    to-path      : ∀ {a b} → R a b → a ≡ b
    to-path-over
      : ∀ {a b} (p : R a b)
      → PathP (λ i → R a (to-path p i)) (refl a) p

  is-contr-ΣR : ∀ {a} → is-contr (Σ A (R a))
  is-contr-ΣR .centre    = _ , refl _
  is-contr-ΣR .paths x i = to-path (x .snd) i , to-path-over (x .snd) i

open is-identity-system public

As mentioned before, the data of an identity system gives is exactly what is required to prove J for the relation $R$. This is essentially the decomposition of J into contractibility of singletons, but with singletons replaced by $R$-singletons.

IdsJ
  : ∀ {ℓ ℓ′ ℓ′′} {A : Type ℓ} {R : A → A → Type ℓ′} {r : ∀ a → R a a} {a : A}
  → is-identity-system R r
  → (P : ∀ b → R a b → Type ℓ′′)
  → P a (r a)
  → ∀ {b} s → P b s
IdsJ ids P pr s =
  transport (λ i → P (ids .to-path s i) (ids .to-path-over s i)) pr

IdsJ-refl
  : ∀ {ℓ ℓ′ ℓ′′} {A : Type ℓ} {R : A → A → Type ℓ′} {r : ∀ a → R a a} {a : A}
  → (ids : is-identity-system R r)
  → (P : ∀ b → R a b → Type ℓ′′)
  → (x : P a (r a))
  → IdsJ ids P x (r a) ≡ x
IdsJ-refl {R = R} {r = r} {a = a} ids P x =
  transport (λ i → P (ids .to-path (r a) i) (ids .to-path-over (r a) i)) x ≡⟨⟩
  subst P′ (λ i → ids .to-path (r a) i , ids .to-path-over (r a) i) x      ≡⟨ ap (λ e → subst P′ e x) lemma ⟩≡
  subst P′ refl x                                                          ≡⟨ transport-refl x ⟩≡
  x ∎
  where
    P′ : Σ _ (R a) → Type _
    P′ (b , r) = P b r

    lemma : Σ-pathp (ids .to-path (r a)) (ids .to-path-over (r a)) ≡ refl
    lemma = is-contr→is-set (is-contr-ΣR ids) _ _ _ _

to-path-refl-coh
  : ∀ {ℓ ℓ′} {A : Type ℓ} {R : A → A → Type ℓ′} {r : ∀ a → R a a}
  → (ids : is-identity-system R r)
  → ∀ a
  → (Σ-pathp (ids .to-path (r a)) (ids .to-path-over (r a))) ≡ refl
to-path-refl-coh {r = r} ids a =
  is-contr→is-set (is-contr-ΣR ids) _ _
    (Σ-pathp (ids .to-path (r a)) (ids .to-path-over (r a)))
    refl

to-path-refl
  : ∀ {ℓ ℓ′} {A : Type ℓ} {R : A → A → Type ℓ′} {r : ∀ a → R a a} {a : A}
  → (ids : is-identity-system R r)
  → ids .to-path (r a) ≡ refl
to-path-refl {r = r} {a = a} ids = ap (ap fst) $ to-path-refl-coh ids a

If we have a relation $R$ together with reflexivity witness $r$, then any equivalence $f : R(a, b) \simeq (a \equiv b)$ which maps $f(r) = \mathrm{refl}$ equips $(R, r)$ with the structure of an identity system. Of course if we do not particularly care about the specific reflexivity witness, we can simply define $r$ as $f^{-1}(\mathrm{refl})$.

equiv-path→identity-system
  : ∀ {ℓ ℓ′} {A : Type ℓ} {R : A → A → Type ℓ′} {r : ∀ a → R a a}
  → (eqv : ∀ {a b} → R a b ≃ (a ≡ b))
  → (∀ a → Equiv.from eqv refl ≡ r a)
  → is-identity-system R r
equiv-path→identity-system {R = R} {r = r} eqv pres′ = ids where
  contract : ∀ {a} → is-contr (Σ _ (R a))
  contract = is-hlevel≃  ((total (λ _ → eqv .fst) , equiv→total (eqv .snd)))
    (contr _ Singleton-is-contr)

  pres : ∀ {a} → eqv .fst (r a) ≡ refl
  pres {a = a} = Equiv.injective₂ (eqv e⁻¹) (Equiv.η eqv _) (pres′ _)

  ids : is-identity-system R r
  ids .to-path = eqv .fst
  ids .to-path-over {a = a} {b = b} p i =
    is-prop→pathp
    (λ i → is-contr→is-prop (eqv .snd .is-eqv λ j → eqv .fst p (i ∧ j)))
    (r a , pres)
    (p , refl)
    i .fst

Note that for any $(R, r)$, the type of identity system data on $(R, r)$ is a proposition. This is because it is exactly equivalent to the type $\sum_a (R a)$ being contractible for every $a$, which is a proposition by standard results.

identity-system-gives-path
  : ∀ {ℓ ℓ′} {A : Type ℓ} {R : A → A → Type ℓ′} {r : ∀ a → R a a}
  → is-identity-system R r
  → ∀ {a b} → R a b ≃ (a ≡ b)
identity-system-gives-path {R = R} {r = r} ids =
  Iso→Equiv (ids .to-path , iso from ri li) where
    from : ∀ {a b} → a ≡ b → R a b
    from {a = a} p = transport (λ i → R a (p i)) (r a)

    ri : ∀ {a b} → is-right-inverse (from {a} {b}) (ids .to-path)
    ri = J (λ y p → ids .to-path (from p) ≡ p)
           ( ap (ids .to-path) (transport-refl _)
           ∙ to-path-refl ids)

    li : ∀ {a b} → is-left-inverse (from {a} {b}) (ids .to-path)
    li = IdsJ ids (λ y p → from (ids .to-path p) ≡ p)
          ( ap from (to-path-refl ids)
          ∙ transport-refl _ )

In subtypes🔗

Let $f : A \hookrightarrow B$ be an embedding. If $(R, r)$ is an identity system on $B$, then it can be pulled back along $f$ to an identity system on $A$.

module
  _ {ℓ ℓ′ ℓ′′} {A : Type ℓ} {B : Type ℓ′}
    {R : B → B → Type ℓ′′} {r : ∀ a → R a a}
    (ids : is-identity-system R r)
    (f : A ↪ B)
  where

  pullback-identity-system
    : is-identity-system (λ x y → R (f .fst x) (f .fst y)) (λ _ → r _)
  pullback-identity-system .to-path {a} {b} x = ap fst $
    f .snd (f .fst b) (a , ids .to-path x) (b , refl)
  pullback-identity-system .to-path-over {a} {b} p i =
    comp
      (λ j → R (f .fst a) (f .snd (f .fst b) (a , ids .to-path p) (b , refl) i .snd (~ j)))
      (∂ i) λ where
      k (k = i0) → ids .to-path-over p (~ k)
      k (i = i0) → ids .to-path-over p (~ k ∨ i)
      k (i = i1) → p

module
  _ {ℓ ℓ′} {A : Type ℓ}
    {R S : A → A → Type ℓ′}
    {r : ∀ a → R a a} {s : ∀ a → S a a}
    (ids : is-identity-system R r)
    (eqv : ∀ x y → R x y ≃ S x y)
    (pres : ∀ x → eqv x x .fst (r x) ≡ s x)
  where

  transfer-identity-system : is-identity-system S s
  transfer-identity-system .to-path sab = ids .to-path (Equiv.from (eqv _ _) sab)
  transfer-identity-system .to-path-over {a} {b} p i = hcomp (∂ i) λ where
    j (j = i0) → Equiv.to (eqv _ _) (ids .to-path-over (Equiv.from (eqv _ _) p) i)
    j (i = i0) → pres a j
    j (i = i1) → Equiv.ε (eqv _ _) p j

Univalence🔗

Note that univalence is precisely the statement that equivalences are an identity system on the universe:

univalence-identity-system
  : ∀ {ℓ} → is-identity-system {A = Type ℓ} _≃_ λ _ → id , id-equiv
univalence-identity-system .to-path = ua
univalence-identity-system .to-path-over p =
  Σ-prop-pathp (λ _ → is-equiv-is-prop) $ funextP $ λ a → path→ua-pathp p refl

is-identity-system-is-prop
  : ∀ {ℓ ℓ′} {A : Type ℓ} {R : A → A → Type ℓ′} {r : ∀ a → R a a}
  → is-prop (is-identity-system R r)
is-identity-system-is-prop {A = A} {R} {r} =
  retract→is-hlevel  from to cancel λ x y i a → is-contr-is-prop (x a) (y a) i
  where
    to : is-identity-system R r → ∀ x → is-contr (Σ A (R x))
    to ids x = is-contr-ΣR ids

    sys : ∀ (l : ∀ x → is-contr (Σ A (R x))) a b (s : R a b) (i j : I)
        → Partial (∂ i ∨ ~ j) (Σ A (R a))
    sys l a b s i j (j = i0) = l a .centre
    sys l a b s i j (i = i0) = l a .paths (a , r a) j
    sys l a b s i j (i = i1) = l a .paths (b , s) j

    from : (∀ x → is-contr (Σ A (R x))) → is-identity-system R r
    from x .to-path      {a} {b} s i = hcomp (∂ i) (sys x a b s i) .fst
    from x .to-path-over {a} {b} s i = hcomp (∂ i) (sys x a b s i) .snd

    square : ∀ (x : is-identity-system R r) a b (s : R a b)
           → Square {A = Σ A (R a)}
             (λ i → x .to-path (r a) i , x .to-path-over (r a) i)
             (λ i → x .to-path s i , x .to-path-over s i)
             (λ i → x .to-path s i , x .to-path-over s i)
             refl
    square x a b s i j = hcomp (∂ i ∨ ∂ j) λ where
      k (k = i0) → x .to-path s j , x .to-path-over s j
      k (i = i0) → x .to-path s j , x .to-path-over s j
      k (i = i1) → x .to-path s j , x .to-path-over s j
      k (j = i0) → to-path-refl-coh {R = R} {r = r} x a (~ k) i
      k (j = i1) → b , s

    sys′ : ∀ (x : is-identity-system R r) a b (s : R a b) i j k
         → Partial (∂ i ∨ ∂ j ∨ ~ k) (Σ A (R a))
    sys′ x a b s i j k (k = i0) = x .to-path (r a) i , x .to-path-over (r a) i
    sys′ x a b s i j k (i = i0) = hfill (∂ j) k (sys (to x) a b s j)
    sys′ x a b s i j k (i = i1) =
        x .to-path (x .to-path-over s (k ∨ j)) (k ∧ j)
      , x .to-path-over (x .to-path-over s (k ∨ j)) (k ∧ j)
    sys′ x a b s i j k (j = i0) =
        x .to-path (r a) (k ∨ i) , x .to-path-over (r a) (k ∨ i)
    sys′ x a b s i j k (j = i1) = square x a b s i k

    cancel : is-left-inverse from to
    cancel x i .to-path {a} {b} s j      = hcomp (∂ i ∨ ∂ j) (sys′ x a b s i j) .fst
    cancel x i .to-path-over {a} {b} s j = hcomp (∂ i ∨ ∂ j) (sys′ x a b s i j) .snd

instance
  H-Level-is-identity-system
    : ∀ {ℓ ℓ′} {A : Type ℓ} {R : A → A → Type ℓ′} {r : ∀ a → R a a} {n}
    → H-Level (is-identity-system R r) (suc n)
  H-Level-is-identity-system = prop-instance is-identity-system-is-prop

identity-system→hlevel
  : ∀ {ℓ ℓ′} {A : Type ℓ} n {R : A → A → Type ℓ′} {r : ∀ x → R x x}
  → is-identity-system R r
  → (∀ x y → is-hlevel (R x y) n)
  → is-hlevel A (suc n)
identity-system→hlevel zero ids hl x y = ids .to-path (hl _ _ .centre)
identity-system→hlevel (suc n) ids hl x y =
  is-hlevel≃ (suc n) (identity-system-gives-path ids e⁻¹) (hl x y)

Sets and Hedberg’s theorem🔗

We now apply the general theory of identity systems to something a lot more mundane: recognising sets. An immediate consequence of having an identity system $(R, r)$ on a type $A$ is that, if $R$ is pointwise an $n$-type, then $A$ is an $(n+1)$-type. Now, if $R$ is a reflexive family of propositions, then all we need for $(R, r)$ to be an identity system is that $R(x, y) \to x = y$, by the previous observation, this implies $A$ is a set.

set-identity-system
  : ∀ {ℓ ℓ′} {A : Type ℓ} {R : A → A → Type ℓ′} {r : ∀ x → R x x}
  → (∀ x y → is-prop (R x y))
  → (∀ {x y} → R x y → x ≡ y)
  → is-identity-system R r
set-identity-system rprop rpath .to-path = rpath
set-identity-system rprop rpath .to-path-over p =
  is-prop→pathp (λ i → rprop _ _) _ p

If $A$ is a type with ¬¬-stable equality, then by the theorem above, the pointwise double negation of its identity types is an identity system: and so, if a type has decidable (thus ¬¬-stable) equality, it is a set.

¬¬-stable-identity-system
  : ∀ {ℓ} {A : Type ℓ}
  → (∀ {x y} → ¬ ¬ Path A x y → x ≡ y)
  → is-identity-system (λ x y → ¬ ¬ Path A x y) λ a k → k refl
¬¬-stable-identity-system = set-identity-system λ x y f g →
  funext λ h → absurd (g h)

Discrete→is-set : ∀ {ℓ} {A : Type ℓ} → Discrete A → is-set A
Discrete→is-set {A = A} dec =
  identity-system→hlevel  (¬¬-stable-identity-system stable) λ x y f g →
    funext λ h → absurd (g h)
  where
    stable : {x y : A} → ¬ ¬ x ≡ y → x ≡ y
    stable {x = x} {y = y} ¬¬p with dec x y
    ... | yes p = p
    ... | no ¬p = absurd (¬¬p ¬p)