Formalizing the Ring of Witt Vectors

The ring of Witt vectors $\mathbb{W} R$ over a base ring $R$ is an important tool in algebraic number theory and lies at the foundations of modern $p$-adic Hodge theory. $\mathbb{W} R$ has the interesting property that it constructs a ring of characteristic $0$ out of a ring of characteristic $p > 1$, and it can be used more specifically to construct from a finite field containing $\mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z}$ the corresponding unramified field extension of the $p$-adic numbers $\mathbb{Q}_p$ (which is unique up to isomorphism). We formalize the notion of a Witt vector in the Lean proof assistant, along with the corresponding ring operations and other algebraic structure. We prove in Lean that, for prime $p$, the ring of Witt vectors over $\mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z}$ is isomorphic to the ring of $p$-adic integers $\mathbb{Z}_p$. In the process we develop idioms to cleanly handle calculations of identities between operations on the ring of Witt vectors. These calculations are intractable with a naive approach, and require a proof technique that is usually skimmed over in the informal literature. Our proofs resemble the informal arguments while being fully rigorous

Sets in homotopy type theory

Homotopy Type Theory may be seen as an internal language for the $\infty$-category of weak $\infty$-groupoids which in particular models the univalence axiom. Voevodsky proposes this language for weak $\infty$-groupoids as a new foundation for mathematics called the Univalent Foundations of Mathematics. It includes the sets as weak $\infty$-groupoids with contractible connected components, and thereby it includes (much of) the traditional set theoretical foundations as a special case. We thus wonder whether those `discrete' groupoids do in fact form a (predicative) topos. More generally, homotopy type theory is conjectured to be the internal language of `elementary' $\infty$-toposes. We prove that sets in homotopy type theory form a $\Pi W$-pretopos. This is similar to the fact that the $0$-truncation of an $\infty$-topos is a topos. We show that both a subobject classifier and a $0$-object classifier are available for the type theoretical universe of sets. However, both of these are large and moreover, the $0$-object classifier for sets is a function between $1$-types (i.e. groupoids) rather than between sets. Assuming an impredicative propositional resizing rule we may render the subobject classifier small and then we actually obtain a topos of sets

On Small Types in Univalent Foundations

We investigate predicative aspects of constructive univalent foundations. By predicative and constructive, we respectively mean that we do not assume Voevodsky's propositional resizing axioms or excluded middle. Our work complements existing work on predicative mathematics by exploring what cannot be done predicatively in univalent foundations. Our first main result is that nontrivial (directed or bounded) complete posets are necessarily large. That is, if such a nontrivial poset is small, then weak propositional resizing holds. It is possible to derive full propositional resizing if we strengthen nontriviality to positivity. The distinction between nontriviality and positivity is analogous to the distinction between nonemptiness and inhabitedness. Moreover, we prove that locally small, nontrivial (directed or bounded) complete posets necessarily lack decidable equality. We prove our results for a general class of posets, which includes e.g. directed complete posets, bounded complete posets, sup-lattices and frames. Secondly, we discuss the unavailability of Zorn's lemma, Tarski's greatest fixed point theorem and Pataraia's lemma in our predicative setting, and prove the ordinal of ordinals in a univalent universe to have small suprema in the presence of set quotients. The latter also leads us to investigate the inter-definability and interaction of type universes of propositional truncations and set quotients, as well as a set replacement principle. Thirdly, we clarify, in our predicative setting, the relation between the traditional definition of sup-lattice that requires suprema for all subsets and our definition that asks for suprema of all small families.Comment: Extended version of arXiv:2102.08812. v2: Revised and expanded following referee report