module Homotopy.Space.Suspension.Properties where
Properties of suspensions🔗
Connectedness🔗
This section contains the aforementioned proof that suspension increases the connectedness of a space.
Susp-is-connected: ∀ {ℓ} {A : Type ℓ} n
→ is-n-connected A n → is-n-connected (Susp A) (suc n)
0 a-conn = inc N
Susp-is-connected 1 a-conn = ∥-∥-out! do
Susp-is-connected
pt ← a-connλ where
pure $ is-connected∙→is-connected → inc refl
N → inc (sym (merid pt))
S (merid x i) → is-prop→pathp (λ i → ∥_∥.squash {A = merid x i ≡ N})
(inc refl) (inc (sym (merid pt))) i
{A = A} (suc (suc n)) a-conn =
Susp-is-connected
n-Tr-elim(λ _ → is-n-connected (Susp A) (3 + n))
(λ _ → is-prop→is-hlevel-suc {n = suc n} (hlevel 1))
(λ x → contr (inc N) (n-Tr-elim _ (λ _ → is-hlevel-suc (2 + n) (n-Tr-is-hlevel (2 + n) _ _))
(Susp-elim _ refl (ap n-Tr.inc (merid x)) λ pt →
(ap (refl ∙_) (rem₂ .snd _ ∙ sym (rem₂ .snd _))))))
commutes→square (conn' .centre)
where
: is-contr (n-Tr A (2 + n))
conn' = is-n-connected-Tr (1 + n) a-conn
conn'
: is-equiv λ b a → b
rem₁ = is-n-connected→n-type-const
rem₁ {B = n-Tr.inc {n = 3 + n} N ≡ inc S} {A = A}
(suc n) (hlevel (2 + n)) a-conn
: Σ (inc N ≡ inc S) (λ p → ∀ x → ap n-Tr.inc (merid x) ≡ p)
rem₂ = _ , λ x → sym (rem₁ .is-eqv _ .centre .snd) $ₚ x rem₂
As a direct corollary, the is (remember that our indices are offset by 2).
: ∀ n → is-n-connected (Sⁿ⁻¹ n) n
Sⁿ⁻¹-is-connected = _
Sⁿ⁻¹-is-connected zero (suc n) = Susp-is-connected n (Sⁿ⁻¹-is-connected n) Sⁿ⁻¹-is-connected
instance
: ∀ {ℓ} {A : Type ℓ} {n} → ⦃ Connected A n ⦄ → Connected (Susp A) (suc n)
Connected-Susp {n = n} ⦃ conn-instance c ⦄ = conn-instance (Susp-is-connected n c) Connected-Susp
Truncatedness🔗
While there is no similarly pleasant characterisation of the truncatedness of suspensions1, we can give a few special cases.
First, the suspension of a contractible type is contractible.
Susp-is-contr: ∀ {ℓ} {A : Type ℓ}
→ is-contr A → is-contr (Susp A)
.centre = N
Susp-is-contr c .paths N = refl
Susp-is-contr c .paths S = merid (c .centre)
Susp-is-contr c .paths (merid a i) j = hcomp (∂ i ∨ ∂ j) λ where
Susp-is-contr c (k = i0) → merid (c .centre) (i ∧ j)
k (i = i0) → N
k (j = i0) → N
k (i = i1) → merid (c .centre) j
k (j = i1) → merid (c .paths a k) i k
Notice the similarity with the proof that the is contractible: that argument is essentially a recursive version of this one, since is its own suspension.
Going up a level, we do not have that the suspension of a proposition is a proposition (think of the suspension of but we do have that the suspension of a proposition is a set.
module _ {ℓ} {A : Type ℓ} (prop : is-prop A) where
We start by defining a helper induction principle: in order to map out of it suffices to give values at the four poles, and, assuming holds, a square over the meridians with the given corners.
Susp-prop-elim²: ∀ {ℓ} {B : Susp A → Susp A → Type ℓ}
→ (bnn : B N N) (bns : B N S)
→ (bsn : B S N) (bss : B S S)
→ ((a : A) → (i j : I) → B (merid a i) (merid a j)
_ ↦ (λ { (i = i0) (j = i0) → bnn
[ ; (i = i0) (j = i1) → bns
; (i = i1) (j = i0) → bsn
; (i = i1) (j = i1) → bss }) ])
→ ∀ a b → B a b
= Susp-elim _
Susp-prop-elim² bnn bns bsn bss bm (Susp-elim _ bnn bns λ a j → outS (bm a i0 j))
(Susp-elim _ bsn bss λ a j → outS (bm a i1 j))
λ a → funextP (Susp-elim _
(λ i → outS (bm a i i0))
(λ i → outS (bm a i i1))
(subst-prop prop a (λ j i → outS (bm a i j))))
Then, we use the usual machinery of identity systems: we define a type family of “codes” of equality for Its values are either for equal poles or for different poles, and we fill the square using univalence.
private
: Susp A → Susp A → Type ℓ
Code = Susp-prop-elim² (Lift _ ⊤) A A (Lift _ ⊤)
Code λ a i j → inS (double-connection (sym (A≡⊤ a)) (A≡⊤ a) i j)
where
: A → A ≡ Lift _ ⊤
A≡⊤ = ua (prop-ext prop (hlevel 1) _ (λ _ → a)) A≡⊤ a
We’ve defined a reflexive family of propositions:
: ∀ a b → is-prop (Code a b)
Code-is-prop = Susp-elim-prop (λ _ → hlevel 1)
Code-is-prop (Susp-elim-prop (λ _ → hlevel 1) (hlevel 1) prop)
(Susp-elim-prop (λ _ → hlevel 1) prop (hlevel 1))
: ∀ a → Code a a
Code-refl = Susp-elim-prop (λ a → Code-is-prop a a) _ _ Code-refl
Thus all that remains is to prove that it implies equality. At the
poles, we can use refl
and merid
.
_ = I-interp
: ∀ a b → Code a b → a ≡ b
decode = Susp-prop-elim²
decode (λ _ → refl) (λ c → merid c)
(λ c → sym (merid c)) (λ _ → refl)
This time, if holds, we have to fill a cube with the given four edges:
Notice that we have two different meridians:
comes from our assumption that
holds, whereas
comes from the function out of codes we’re trying to build. If
and
were the same, we could simply fill this cube by interpolating
between
and
along
However, we can take a shortcut: since we’ve assumed
holds, and
is a proposition, then
is contractible, and we’ve shown
that the suspension of a
contractible type is contractible, so we can trivially extend
our
partial system to fill the desired cube!
λ a i j → is-contr→extend
(Π-is-hlevel 0 (λ _ → Path-is-hlevel 0
(Susp-is-contr (is-prop∙→is-contr prop a))))
(∂ i ∧ ∂ j) _
This concludes the proof that is a set with
: is-identity-system Code Code-refl
Code-ids = set-identity-system Code-is-prop (decode _ _)
Code-ids
opaque: is-set (Susp A)
Susp-prop-is-set = identity-system→hlevel 1 Code-ids Code-is-prop
Susp-prop-is-set
: Path (Susp A) N S ≃ A
Susp-prop-path = identity-system-gives-path Code-ids e⁻¹ Susp-prop-path