Set or h-set about book

[mikeshulman]

I think we decided to just say 'set', because internally to type theory
there is no other notion of set.
On Mar 8, 2013 9:02 AM, "Andrej Bauer" [email protected] wrote:

In revising the set theory chapter I discovered Definition 2.7.1 of a
"set" and Definition 5.3.9 of "h-set". What is the official terminology?
Should I say "set" or "h-set"?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/5
.

[andrejbauer]

So does that mean we should erradicate h-sets? And we have two definitions...

[mikeshulman]

Yes. The definitions in chapter 5 should probably be changed to recall
instead that these agree with the previous definitions from chapter 2.
On Mar 8, 2013 9:08 AM, "Andrej Bauer" [email protected] wrote:

So does that mean we should erradicate h-sets? And we have two
definitions...

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/5#issuecomment-14621435
.

[cangiuli]

I renamed h-prop and h-set in chapter 5 (commit d4ecd0e) but didn't point the definitions to chapter 2 as Mike suggested. (I only saw this issue afterwards...)

[mikeshulman]

Chapter 5 now points to chapter 2 appropriately.