<story><title>Homotopy Type Theory and Higher Inductive Types</title><url>http://www.science4all.org/article/homotopy-type-theory/</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>sigsergv</author><text>This articly is quite hard to read and follow. I have some background in math but can&amp;#x27;t follow the logic in the article because author is constantly jumping from one topic to anonther. Artificial “questions” from imaginary layman are not helping, instead they confuse and dilute attention.</text></comment>
<story><title>Homotopy Type Theory and Higher Inductive Types</title><url>http://www.science4all.org/article/homotopy-type-theory/</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>auggierose</author><text>I really wish somebody could explain the Univalence axiom to me. Without assuming that I know category theory or algebraic topology. You know, just like you can explain the axioms of set theory pretty easily. I mean, if it is a foundation, there should be an easy way to explain it. And not in metaphors, please, but in a precise way.</text></comment>