The concept of homotopy type

[marcbezem]

Should be clarified somewhere in the book, currently Appendix B.3.

[DanGrayson]

Or we should not use it. The use most people in our field put it to conflicts with the classical definition, and equivalence class of spaces modulo homotopy equivalence.

[bidundas]

I agree that ”homotopy type” should have as small a place in the text as possible.

A thing I liked about univalence is that it made my colloquialism ”up to deformation” (which I’ve always favored when giving popularizations) into something precise.

Bjorn

On Jul 1, 2023, at 18:06, Daniel R. Grayson @.***> wrote:

Or we should not use it. The use most people in our field put it to conflicts with the classical definition, and equivalence class of spaces modulo homotopy equivalence.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.