Martin Escardo, 28 February 2018.

    A self-contained, brief and complete formulation of
    Voevodsky's Univalence Axiom

1. Introduction
In introductions to the subject for a general audience of
mathematicians or logicians, the univalence axiom is typically
explained by handwaving. This gives rise to several misconceptions,
which cannot be properly addressed in the absence of a precise

Here we give a complete formulation of the univalence axiom from

 * first written informally but rigorously in mathematical English
   prose, and
 * then formally in Agda notation for Martin-Löf type theory.

(Search for "UnivalenceFromScratch" to jump to the formal version.)

The univalence axiom is not true or false in, say, ZFC or the internal
language of an elementary topos. It cannot even be formulated. As the
saying goes, it is not even wrong.

This is because

   univalence is a property of Martin-Löf's *identity type*
   of a universe of types.

Nothing like Martin-Löf's identity type occurs in ZFC or topos logic
as a *native* concept like in MLTT. Of course, we can create *models*
of the identity type and univalence in these theories, which will make
univalence hold or fail. But in these notes we try to understand the
primitive concept of identity type, and the univalence axiom, directly
and independently of any such particular model, as in the original
Martin-Löf type theory. In particular, we don't use the equality sign
"=" to denote the identity type Id, or think of it as a path space.

The underlying idea of these notes is that they should be as concise
as possible (and not more). They are not meant to be an Encyclopedia
of Univalence.

The source code for this file is available at
Issues and contributions are welcome.

This document is also available at
with the Agda code as an ancillary file.

2. Informal, rigorous construction of the univalence type

Univalence is a type, and the univalence axiom says that this type has
some inhabitant. It takes a number of steps to construct this type, in
addition to subtle decisions (e.g. to work with equivalences rather
than isomorphisms, as discussed below).

We first need to briefly introduce Martin-Löf type theory (MLTT). We
will not give a course in MLTT. Instead, we will mention which
constructs of MLTT are needed to give a complete definition of the
univalence type. This will be enough to illustrate the important fact
that in order to understand univalence we first need to understand
Martin-Löf type theory well.

* Types and their elements

Types are the analogues of sets in ZFC and of objects in topos theory.

Types are constructed together with their elements, and not by
collecting some previously existing elements. When a type is
constructed, we get freshly new elements for it. We write


to declare that the element x has type X. This is not something that
is true or false (like a membership relation x ∈ X in ZFC). For
example, if ℕ is the type of natural numbers, we may write

    17 : ℕ,
   (13,17) : ℕ × ℕ.

However, the following statements are nonsensical and syntactically
incorrect, rather than false:

    17 : ℕ × ℕ (nonsense),
   (13,17) : ℕ (nonsense).

This is no different from the situation in the internal language of a

* Products and sums of type families

Given a family of types A(x) indexed by elements x of a type X, we can
form its product and sum:

    Π(x:X), A(x),
    Σ(x:X), A(x),

which we also write Π A and Σ A. An element of the type Π A is a
function that maps elements x:X to elements of A(x). An element of the
type Σ A is a pair (x,a) with x:X and a:A(x).

(We adopt the convention that Π and Σ scope over the whole rest of the

We also have the type X→Y of functions from X to Y, which is the
particular case of Π with the constant family A(x):=Y.

We also have the cartesian product X×Y, whose elements are pairs. This
is the particular case of Σ, again with A(x):=Y. 

We also have the disjoint sum X+Y, the empty type 𝟘 and the
one-element type 𝟙, which will not be needed here.

* Quantifiers and logic

There is no underlying logic in MLTT. Propositions are types, and Π
and Σ play the role of universal and existential quantifiers, via the
so-called Curry-Howard interpretation of logic. As for the
connectives, implication is given by the function-type construction →,
conjunction by the binary cartesian product ×, and disjunction by the
binary disjoint sum +.

The elements of a type correspond to proofs, and instead of saying
that a type A has a given element, it is common practice to say that A
holds, when the type A is understood as a proposition. In this case,
x:A is read as saying that x is a proof of A. But this is just a
linguistic device, which is (deliberately) not reflected in the

We remark that in univalent mathematics the terminology
*proposition* is reserved for subsingleton types (types whose
elements are all identified). The propositions that arise in the
construction of the univalence type are all subsingletons.

* The identity type

Given a type X and elements x,y:X, we have the identity type


with the subscript X often elided. The idea is that Id(x,y) collects
the ways in which x and y are identified.

We have a function

    refl : Π(x:X), Id(x,x),

which identifies any element with itself. Without univalence, refl is
the only given way to construct elements of the identity type.

In addition to refl, for any given type family A(x,y,p)
indexed by elements x,y:X and p:Id(x,y) and any given function

    f : Π(x:X), A(x,x,refl(x)),

we have a function 

    J(A,f) : Π(x,y:X), Π(p:Id(x,y)), A(x,y,p)

with J(A,f)(x,x,refl(x)) stipulated to be f(x).

We will see examples of uses of J in the steps leading to the
construction of the univalence type.

Then, in summary, the identity type is given by the data Id,refl,J.
With this, the exact nature of the type Id(x,y) is fairly
under-specified. It is consistent that it is always a subsingleton in
the sense that K(X) holds, where

   K(X) := Π(x,y:X), Π(p,q:Id(x,y)), Id(p,q).

The second identity type Id(p,q) is that of the type Id(x,y). This is
possible because any type has an identity type, including the identity
type itself, and the identity type of the identity type, and so on,
which is the basis for univalent mathematics (but this is not
discussed here, as it is not needed in order to construct the
univalence type).

The K axiom says that K(X) holds for every type X.  In univalent
mathematics, a type X that satisfies K(X) is called a set, and with
this terminology, the K axiom says that all types are sets.

On the other hand, the univalence axiom provides a means of
constructing elements other than refl(x), at least for some types, and
hence the univalence axiom implies that some types are not sets. (Then
they will instead be 1-groupoids, or 2-groupoids, ⋯, or even
∞-groupoids, with such notions defined within MLTT rather than via
models, but we will not address this important aspect of univalent
mathematics here).

* Universes

Our final ingredient is a "large" type of "small" types, called a
universe. It is common to assume a tower of universes U₀, U₁, U₂,
... of "larger and larger" types, with

   U₀ : U₁,
   U₁ : U₂,
   U₂ : U₃,

When we have universes, a type family A indexed by a type X:U may be
considered to be a function A:X→V for some universe V.

Universes are also used to construct types of mathematical structures,
such as the type of groups, whose definition starts like this:

 Grp := Σ(G:U), isSet(G) × Σ(e:G), Σ(_∙_:G×G→G), (Π(x:G), Id(e∙x,x)) × ⋯ 

Here isSet(G):=Π(x,y:G),Π(p,q:Id(x,y)),Id(p,q), as above. With
univalence, Grp itself will not be a set, but a 1-groupoid instead,
namely a type whose identity types are all sets. Moreover, if U
satisfies the univalence axiom, then for A,B:Grp, the identity type
Id(A,B) can be shown to be in bijection with the group isomorphisms of
A and B.

* Univalence

Univalence is a property of the identity type Id_U of a universe U. It
takes a number of steps to define the univalence type.
We say that a type X is a singleton if we have an element c:X with
Id(c,x) for all x:X. In Curry-Howard logic, this is

    isSingleton(X) := Σ(c:X), Π(x:X), Id(c,x).

(Alternative terminology not used here: X is contractible.)

For a function f:X→Y and an element y:Y, its fiber is the type of
points x:X that are mapped to (a point identified with) y:

    f⁻¹(y) := Σ(x:X),Id(f(x),y).

The function f is called an equivalence if its fibers are all

    isEquiv(f) := Π(y:Y), isSingleton(f⁻¹(y)).

The type of equivalences from X:U to Y:U is

    Eq(X,Y) := Σ(f:X→Y), isEquiv(f).

Given x:X, we have the singleton type consisting of the elements y:X
identified with x:

   singletonType(x) := Σ(y:X), Id(y,x).

We also have the element η(x) of this type:

   η(x) := (x, refl(x)).

We now need to *prove* that singleton types are singletons:

   Π(x:X), isSingleton(singletonType(x)).

In order to do that, we use J with the type family

   A(y,x,p) := Id(η(x),(y,p)),

and the function f : Π(x:X), A(x,x,refl(x)) defined by

   f(x) := refl(η(x)).

With this we get a function

   φ : Π(y,x:X), Π(p:Id(y,x)), Id(η(x),(y,p))
   φ := J(A,f).

(Notice the reversal of y and x.)

With this, we can in turn define a function

   g : Π(x:X), Π(σ:singletonType(x)), Id(η(x),σ)
   g(x,(y,p)) := φ(y,x,p).

Finally, using g we get our desired result, that singleton types are

   h : Π(x:X), Σ(c:singletonType(x)), Π(σ:singletonType(x)), Id(c,σ)
   h(x) := (η(x),g(x)).

Now, for any type X, its identity function id_X, defined by

   id(x) := x,

is an equivalence. This is because the fiber id⁻¹(x) is simply the
singleton type defined above, which we proved to be a singleton. We
need to name this function, because it is needed in the formulation of
the univalence of U:

   idIsEquiv : Π(X:U), isEquiv(id_X).

(The identity function id_X should not be confused with the identity
type Id_X.)

Now we use J a second time to define a function

   IdToEq : Π(X,Y:U), Id(X,Y) → Eq(X,Y).

For X,Y:U and p:Id(X,Y), we set

   A(X,Y,p) := Eq(X,Y)

   f(X) := (id_X , idIsEquiv(X)),


   IdToEq := J(A,f).

Finally, we say that the universe U is univalent if the map
IdToEq(X,Y) is itself an equivalence:

   isUnivalent(U) := Π(X,Y:U), isEquiv(IdToEq(X,Y)).

* The univalence axiom

The type isUnivalent(U) may or may not have an inhabitant. The
univalence axiom says that it does. Without the univalence axiom (or
some other axiom such as the assertion that K(U) has an inhabitant),
the inhabitedness of the type isUnivalent(U) is undecided.

* Notes

 1. The minimal Martin-Löf type theory needed to formulate univalence

      Π, Σ, Id, U, U'.

    Two universes U:U' suffice, where univalence talks about U.
 2. It can be shown, by a very complicated and interesting argument,

     Π(u,v: isUnivalent(U)), Id(u,v).

    This says that univalence is a subsingleton type (any two of its
    elements are identified). In the first step we use u (or v) to get
    function extensionality (any two pointwise identified functions
    are identified), which is *not* provable in MLTT, but is provable
    from the assumption that U is univalent. Then, using this, one
    shows that being an equivalence is a subsingleton type. Finally,
    again using function extensionality, we get that a product of
    subsingletons is a subsingleton. But then Id(u,v) holds, which is
    what we wanted to show. But this of course omits the proof that
    univalence implies function extensionality (originally due to
    Voevodsky), which is fairly elaborate.

 3. For a function f:X→Y, consider the type

     Iso(f) := Σ(g:Y→X), (Π(x:X), Id(g(f(x)),x)) × (Π(y:Y), Id(f(g(y)),y)).

    We have functions r:Iso(f)→isEquiv(f) and
    s:isEquiv(f)→Iso(f). However, the type isEquiv(f) is always a
    subsingleton, assuming function extensionality, whereas the type
    Iso(f) need not be. What we do have is that the function r is a
    retraction with section s.

    Moreover, the univalence type formulated as above, but using
    Iso(f) rather than isEquiv(f) is provably empty, e.g. for MLTT
    with Π, Σ, Id, the empty and two-point types, and three universes,
    as shown by Shulman. With only one universe, the formulation with
    Iso(f) is consistent, as shown by Hofmann and Streicher's groupoid
    model, but in this case all elements of the universe are sets and
    Iso(f) is a subsingleton, and hence equivalent to isEquiv(f).

    So, to have a consistent axiom in general, it is crucial to use
    the type isEquiv(f). It was Voevodsky's insight that not only a
    subsingleton version of Iso(f) is needed, but also how to
    construct it. The construction of isEquiv(f) is very simple and
    elegant, and motivated by homotopical models of the theory, where
    it corresponds to the concept with the same name. But the
    univalence axiom can be understood without reference to homotopy

 3. Voevodsky gave a model of univalence for MLTT with Π,Σ, empty
    type, one-point type, two-point type, natural numbers, and an
    infinite tower of universes in simplicial sets, thus establishing
    the consistency of the univalence axiom.
    The consistency of the univalence axiom shows that, before we
    postulate it, MLTT is "proto-univalent" in the sense that it
    cannot distinguish concrete isomorphic types such as X:=ℕ and
    Y:=ℕ×ℕ by a property P:U→U such that P(X) holds but P(Y) doesn't.
    This is because, being isomorphic, X and Y are equivalent. But
    then univalence implies Id(X,Y), which in turn implies P(X) ⇔ P(Y)
    using J.  Because univalence is consistent, it follows that for
    any given concrete P:U→U, it is impossible to prove that P(X)
    holds but P(Y) doesn't.

    So MLTT is invariant under isomorphism in this doubly negative,
    meta-mathematical sense. With univalence, it becomes invariant
    under isomorphism in a positive, mathematical sense.

 4. Thus, we see that the formulation of univalence is far from
    direct, and has much more to it than the (in our opinion,
    misleading) slogan "isomorphic types are equal".

    What the consistency of the univalence axiom says is that one
    possible understanding of the identity type Id(X,Y) for X,Y:U is
    as precisely the type Eq(X,Y) of equivalences, in the sense of
    being in one-to-one correspondence with it. Without univalence,
    the nature of the identity type of the universe in MLTT is fairly
    under-specified. It is a remarkable property of MLTT that it is
    consistent with this understanding of the identity type of the
    universe, discovered by Vladimir Voevodsky (and foreseen by Martin
    Hofmann and Thomas Streicher (1996) in a particular case).

This paper only explains what the *univalence axiom* is. A brief and
reasonably complete introduction to *univalent mathematics* is given
by Grayson.


Daniel R. Grayson.  An introduction to univalent foundations for
mathematicians, 2017.

Martin Hofmann and Thomas Streicher.  The groupoid interpretation of
type theory.  In Twenty-five years of constructive type theory
(Venice, 1995), volume 36 of Oxford Logic Guides, pages
83--111. Oxford Univ.  Press, New York, 1998.;jsessionid=8452D335B33D098D993C3D5E870CAE03?doi=

Chris Kapulkin and Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine.  The simplicial model of
univalent foundations (after Voevodsky), 2012.

Chris Kapulkin, Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine, and Vladimir Voevodsky.  The
simplicial model of univalent foundations, 2012.

Per Martin-L\"of.  Constructive mathematics and computer programming.
In Logic, methodology and philosophy of science, VI
(Hannover, 1979), volume 104 of Stud. Logic Found. Math.,
pages 153--175. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1982.

Michael Shulman.  Solution to Exercise 4.6 (in pure MLTT), March

The Univalent Foundations Program.  Homotopy Type Theory:
Univalent Foundations of Mathematics., Institute for Advanced
Study, 2013.

Vladimir Voevodsky.  An experimental library of formalized mathematics
based on the univalent foundations.  Math. Structures
Comput. Sci., 25(5):1278--1294, 2015.

3. Formal construction of the univalence type in Agda

We now give a symbolic rendering of the above construction of the
univalence type, in Agda notation. (Agda documentation is at

The fragment of Agda used here amounts to the subset of MLTT with
Π,Σ,Id and a tower of universes as discussed above. By default, Agda
has the K axiom, which, as discussed above, contradicts univalence,
and hence we disable it. Inductive definitions in Agda are given with
the keyword "data". Unlike Coq, Agda doesn't derive the induction
principles, and one has to do this manually, as we do in the
definition of J. Finally, notice that in Agda one constructs things by
first specifying their types and then giving a definition with the
equality sign.

The letters U, V, W range over universes, the successor of a universe
U is written U ′, and the first universe after the universes U and V
is written U ⊔ V, to avoid subscripts.


{-# OPTIONS --without-K --exact-split --safe #-}

module UnivalenceFromScratch where

open import Agda.Primitive using (_⊔_) renaming (lzero to U₀ ; lsuc to _′ ; Level to Universe)

 : (U : Universe)  _
U ̇ = Set U -- This should be the only use of the Agda keyword 'Set' in this development.

infix  0 

data Σ {U V : Universe} {X : U ̇} (Y : X  V ̇) : U  V ̇ where
  _,_ : (x : X) (y : Y x)  Σ Y

data Id {U : Universe} {X : U ̇} : X  X  U ̇ where
  refl : (x : X)  Id x x

J : {U V : Universe} {X : U ̇}
   (A : (x y : X)  Id x y  V ̇)
   ((x : X)  A x x (refl x))
   (x y : X) (p : Id x y)  A x y p
J A f x .x (refl .x) = f x

isSingleton : {U : Universe}  U ̇  U ̇
isSingleton X = Σ \(c : X)  (x : X)  Id c x

fiber : {U V : Universe} {X : U ̇} {Y : V ̇}  (X  Y)  Y  U  V ̇
fiber f y = Σ \x  Id (f x) y

isEquiv : {U V : Universe} {X : U ̇} {Y : V ̇}  (X  Y)  U  V ̇
isEquiv f = (y : _)  isSingleton(fiber f y)

Eq : {U V : Universe}  U ̇  V ̇  U  V ̇
Eq X Y = Σ \(f : X  Y)  isEquiv f

singletonType : {U : Universe} {X : U ̇}  X  U ̇
singletonType x = Σ \y  Id y x

η : {U : Universe} {X : U ̇} (x : X)  singletonType x
η x = (x , refl x)

singletonTypesAreSingletons : {U : Universe} {X : U ̇} (x : X)  isSingleton(singletonType x)
singletonTypesAreSingletons {U} {X} = h
  A : (y x : X)  Id y x  U ̇
  A y x p = Id (η x) (y , p)
  f : (x : X)  A x x (refl x)
  f x = refl (η x)
  φ : (y x : X) (p : Id y x)  Id (η x) (y , p)
  φ = J A f
  g : (x : X) (σ : singletonType x)  Id (η x) σ
  g x (y , p) = φ y x p
  h : (x : X)  Σ \(c : singletonType x)  (σ : singletonType x)  Id c σ
  h x = (η x , g x)

id : {U : Universe} (X : U ̇)  X  X
id X x = x

idIsEquiv : {U : Universe} (X : U ̇)  isEquiv(id X)
idIsEquiv X = g
  g : (x : X)  isSingleton (fiber (id X) x)
  g = singletonTypesAreSingletons

IdToEq : {U : Universe} (X Y : U ̇)  Id X Y  Eq X Y
IdToEq {U} = J A f
  A : (X Y : U ̇)  Id X Y  U ̇
  A X Y p = Eq X Y
  f : (X : U ̇)  A X X (refl X)
  f X = (id X , idIsEquiv X)

isUnivalent : (U : Universe)  U  ̇
isUnivalent U = (X Y : U ̇)  isEquiv(IdToEq X Y)


Thus, we see that even in its concise symbolic form, the formulation
of univalence is far from direct.

Using projections pr₁ and pr₂ rather than pattern matching on Σ types
(by defining Σ as a record type), Agda calculates the following normal
form for the term isUnivalent:

λ U → (X Y : Set U) (y : Σ (λ f → (y₁ : Y) → Σ (λ c →
(x : Σ (λ x₁ → Id (f x₁) y₁)) → Id c x))) →
Σ (λ c → (x : Σ (λ x₁ → Id (J (λ X₁ Y₁ p → Σ (λ f →
(y₁ : Y₁) → Σ (λ c₁ → (x₂ : Σ (λ x₃ → Id (f x₃) y₁)) → Id c₁ x₂)))
(λ X₁ → (λ x₂ → x₂) , (λ x₂ → (x₂ , refl x₂) , (λ yp → J (λ y₁ x₃ p →
Id (x₃ , refl x₃) (y₁ , p)) (λ x₃ → refl (x₃ , refl x₃))
(pr₁ yp) x₂ (pr₂ yp)))) X Y x₁) y)) → Id c x)

This is with lots of subterms elided. With all of them explicitly
given, the normal form of isUnivalent is

λ U → (X Y : U ̇) (y : Σ {U} {U} {X → Y} (λ f → (y₁ : Y) → Σ {U} {U}
{Σ {U} {U} {X} (λ x → Id {U} {Y} (f x) y₁)} (λ c → (x : Σ {U} {U} {X}
(λ x₁ → Id {U} {Y} (f x₁) y₁)) → Id {U} {Σ {U} {U} {X} (λ x₁ → Id {U} {Y}
(f x₁) y₁)} c x))) → Σ {U ′} {U ′} {Σ {U ′} {U} {Id {U ′} {U ̇} X Y}
(λ x → Id {U} {Σ {U} {U} {X → Y} (λ f → (y₁ : Y) → Σ {U} {U}
{Σ {U} {U} {X} (λ x₁ → Id {U} {Y} (f x₁) y₁)} (λ c → (x₁ : Σ {U} {U} {X}
(λ x₂ → Id {U} {Y} (f x₂) y₁)) → Id {U} {Σ {U} {U} {X} (λ x₂ → Id {U} {Y}
(f x₂) y₁)} c x₁))} (J {U ′} {U} {U ̇} (λ X₁ Y₁ p → Σ {U} {U} {X₁ → Y₁}
(λ f → (y₁ : Y₁) → Σ {U} {U} {Σ {U} {U} {X₁} (λ x₁ → Id {U} {Y₁} (f x₁) y₁)}
(λ c → (x₁ : Σ {U} {U} {X₁} (λ x₂ → Id {U} {Y₁} (f x₂) y₁)) → Id {U}
{Σ {U} {U} {X₁} (λ x₂ → Id {U} {Y₁} (f x₂) y₁)} c x₁))) (λ X₁ → (λ x₁ → x₁)
, (λ x₁ → (x₁ , refl x₁) , (λ yp → J {U} {U} {X₁} (λ y₁ x₂ p → Id {U}
{Σ {U} {U} {X₁} (λ y₂ → Id {U} {X₁} y₂ x₂)} (x₂ , refl x₂) (y₁ , p))
(λ x₂ → refl (x₂ , refl x₂)) (pr₁ yp) x₁ (pr₂ yp)))) X Y x) y)} (λ c →
(x : Σ {U ′} {U} {Id {U ′} {U ̇} X Y} (λ x₁ → Id {U} {Σ {U} {U} {X → Y}
(λ f → (y₁ : Y) → Σ {U} {U} {Σ {U} {U} {X} (λ x₂ → Id {U} {Y} (f x₂) y₁)}
(λ c₁ → (x₂ : Σ {U} {U} {X} (λ x₃ → Id {U} {Y} (f x₃) y₁)) → Id {U}
{Σ {U} {U} {X} (λ x₃ → Id {U} {Y} (f x₃) y₁)} c₁ x₂))} (J {U ′} {U} {U ̇}
(λ X₁ Y₁ p → Σ {U} {U} {X₁ → Y₁} (λ f → (y₁ : Y₁) → Σ {U} {U} {Σ {U} {U}
{X₁} (λ x₂ → Id {U} {Y₁} (f x₂) y₁)} (λ c₁ → (x₂ : Σ {U} {U} {X₁} (λ x₃ →
Id {U} {Y₁} (f x₃) y₁)) → Id {U} {Σ {U} {U} {X₁} (λ x₃ → Id {U} {Y₁} (f x₃)
y₁)} c₁ x₂))) (λ X₁ → (λ x₂ → x₂) , (λ x₂ → (x₂ , refl x₂) , (λ yp → J {U}
{U} {X₁} (λ y₁ x₃ p → Id {U} {Σ {U} {U} {X₁} (λ y₂ → Id {U} {X₁} y₂ x₃)}
(x₃ , refl x₃) (y₁ , p)) (λ x₃ → refl (x₃ , refl x₃)) (pr₁ yp) x₂ (pr₂ yp))))
X Y x₁) y)) → Id {U ′} {Σ {U ′} {U} {Id {U ′} {U ̇} X Y} (λ x₁ → Id {U}
{Σ {U} {U} {X → Y} (λ f → (y₁ : Y) → Σ {U} {U} {Σ {U} {U} {X} (λ x₂ →
Id {U} {Y} (f x₂) y₁)} (λ c₁ → (x₂ : Σ {U} {U} {X} (λ x₃ → Id {U} {Y} (f x₃)
y₁)) → Id {U} {Σ {U} {U} {X} (λ x₃ → Id {U} {Y} (f x₃) y₁)} c₁ x₂))}
(J {U ′} {U} {U ̇} (λ X₁ Y₁ p → Σ {U} {U} {X₁ → Y₁} (λ f → (y₁ : Y₁) →
Σ {U} {U} {Σ {U} {U} {X₁} (λ x₂ → Id {U} {Y₁} (f x₂) y₁)} (λ c₁ →
(x₂ : Σ {U} {U} {X₁} (λ x₃ → Id {U} {Y₁} (f x₃) y₁)) → Id {U} {Σ {U} {U} {X₁}
(λ x₃ → Id {U} {Y₁} (f x₃) y₁)} c₁ x₂))) (λ X₁ → (λ x₂ → x₂) , (λ x₂ → (x₂ ,
refl x₂) , (λ yp → J {U} {U} {X₁} (λ y₁ x₃ p → Id {U} {Σ {U} {U} {X₁}
(λ y₂ → Id {U} {X₁} y₂ x₃)} (x₃ , refl x₃) (y₁ , p)) (λ x₃ → refl (x₃ ,
refl x₃)) (pr₁ yp) x₂ (pr₂ yp)))) X Y x₁) y)} c x)