Closed midfield closed 11 years ago
I don't think so. It should be possible to prove that forall x : S1, JuniorHopf(x) ≃ S0
. What makes you think that the are "merely" equivalent to S0?
It should be possible to prove that
forall x : S1, JuniorHopf(x) ≃ S0
.
If that were the case, then by function extensionality, JuniorHopf
would be a constant type family, which it's not supposed to be.
Hmm, I should learn some homotopy type theory. So what is the correct formulation of the exercise then?
I would probably say "whose fiber over the basepoint is S^0".
Actually, the senior Hopf fibration (Theorem 8.5.1) has the same problem!
Exercise 8.8 ("the junior Hopf fibration") states
"define the junior Hopf fibration as a fibration (that is, a type family) over S^1 whose fibers are S^0"
Following the book's conventions, this probably should be reworded to something like
"whose fiber over the basepoint is S^0"
or
"whose fibers are merely equivalent to S^0"