Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
CIRM, May 30
History
History
History
Martin-L
of first system with a type of all types 1971 (inspired by Howard and
Scott and Girard)
Girards paradox 1971
Martin-L
of predicative system 1972, 1973 (formulation of the rules for identity)
Martin-L
of extensional type theory 1979
Bibliopolis book, 1984 (available on-line) still extensional version
Some notation
Some notation
A B C for A (B C)
-calculus notation for functions
x.x2 + 1 denotes the function f such that f a = a2 + 1
In general (x.t) a is equal to t(x = a).
The variable x is bound in x.t
x.f.f x is in A (A X) X
The false proposition corresponds to the empty set
A corresponds to A
(A ) is empty if A is empty and has one element if A is nonempty
Propositions as Sets?
A B corresponds to A B
A + B corresponds to A B
f.z.f z.1 z.2 is in (A B X) A B X
f.x.y.f (x, y) is in (A B X) A B X
Propositions as Sets?
(A (A B)) B corresponds to
(A (A B)) B which is inhabited by z.z.2 (z.1)
f.g.x.g (f x) inhabits (A B) B A
(B A) A B does not have any uniform inhabitant
10
iI
11
Y
Y
Y
f.i.(f.1 i, f.2 i) is in (
Bi
Ci )
Bi Ci
iI
iI
iI
Y
Y
Bi Ci ) (
Bi
Ci )
iI
iI
iI
12
jJ
f IJ
iI
iI
Bi then c.1 is in I
iI
13
Primitive recursion
N is generated by 0 and x + 1
If a is in X and g is in N X X we can define f in N X by the
equations
f 0=a
f (n + 1) = g n (f n)
Hilbert 1926
14
Primitive recursion
f 0=a
f (n + 1) = g n (f n)
15
If b is of type
x:A
B(x)
x:A
B is written A B
x:A
17
B(x)
x:A
If c :
x:A
B is written A B
x:A
18
x:A
(x : A)B(x)
But it represents also {x : A | B(x)}
Type of real numbers
X
Y Y
|x (m + n) x m| 6 2m
x:N Q m:N
n:N
19
Disjoint union
f (inl x) = u
f (inr y) = v
20
Disjoint union
The language of the theory is richer than the language of traditional systems in
permitting proofs to appear as parts of the propositions so that the propositions
can express properties of proofs (and not only individuals, like in first-order
logic). This makes it possible to strengthen the axioms for existence, disjunction,
absurdity and identity.
21
Disjoint union
elimination rule
B
AB
A
AB
C [A]
C [B]
C
AB
22
Natural numbers
n:N
f 0=d
f (S n) = e n (f n)
23
Inductive definitions
f 0=a
24
Inductive definitions
f 0 = a0
f 1 = a1
25
Inductive definitions
26
Inductive definitions
27
Inductive definitions
N, N2, N1, N0 and A+B are examples of type introduced by ordinary inductive
definition
Hilbert 1926 considers the type Ord of ordinal numbers
0 : Ord
if x : Ord then S x : Ord
if u : N Ord then its limit L u : Ord
28
Inductive definitions
If c : C(0) and g :
x:Ord
h:
Y
u:N Ord
C (u n)) C (L u)
n:N
we may introduce f :
x:Ord
f 0=c
f (S x) = g x(f x)
f (L u) = h u (f u)
where (f u) x = f (u x)
29
Inductive definitions
30
Type theory
In the formal theory the abstract entities (natural numbers, ordinals, functions,
types, and so on) become represented by certain symbol configurations, called
terms, and the definitional schema, read from the left to the right, become
mechanical reduction rules for these symbol configurations.
Type theory effectuates the computerization of abstract intuitionistic
mathematics that above all Bishop has asked for
It provides a framework in which we can express conceptual mathematics in a
computational way.
31
Type theory
32
Context
Notion of context (introduced by Automath, N. de Bruijn)
x1 : A1, x2 : A2(x1), x3 : A3(x1, x2), . . .
let x be a natural number, assume that (x) holds for x, and let y be a
rational number, . . .
x : N, h : (x), y : Q, . . .
Compared to the usual mathematical notation, notice that we have an explicit
name for the hypothesis that (x) holds.
a1, . . . , an fits x1 : A1, . . . , xn : An iff
a1 : A1, a2 : A2(a1), . . . , an : An(a1, . . . , an1)
33
Context
, , . . . for context
Hypothetical judgements ` a : A
Interpretation if = x1 : A1, . . . , xn : An
sequence a1, . . . , an such that
` a1 : A1, ` a2 : A2(a1), . . . , ` an : An(a1, . . . , an1)
34
36
T (n + 1) = (T n) N
but also Eq : N N U
Eq 0 0 = N1
Eq (n + 1) (m + 1) = Eq n m
Eq 0 (m + 1) = Eq (n + 1) 0 = N0
37
Girards paradox
38
Girards paradox
and well-founded
Y
Y
QAR=
(
R (f (n + 1)) (f n))
f :N A
n:N
where X = X = X N0
39
Girards paradox
R:AAU
40
Girards paradox
We show
Y
RV x v0
x:V
and in particular
RV v0 v0
using qV (proof that RV is well-founded), we get a closed term of type N0
This term is not normalizable
(intuitively, we loop when we try to understand this proof)
41
Universe
The incoherence of the idea of a type of all types whatsoever made it necessary
to distinguish, like in category theory, between small and large types. Thus the
universe U appears, not as the type of all types, but as the type of small types,
whereas U itself and all types which are built up from it are large. This makes
the types wellfounded and the theory predicative.
The situation is reminiscent of the situation in set theory after Russells
paradox
New information: formally one can prove normalization of the inconsistent
system in the same way as one proves normalization of consistent system (this
casts some doubt on normalization proofs...)
42
Universe
B:U
x:A
43
Universes
X:U
(X + X) is provable
X:U
44
Universes
Define T : N2 U by T 0 = N0
then we can prove
Y
((X + X)
X:U
T 1 = N1
(X T b))
b:N2
45
46
47
Churchs formulation
48
Type theory
x:U
49
50
is of type A A U
51
The W type
Y
x:A
B and
x:A
52
The W type
If d :
we may introduce g :
C (f y)) C (sup x f )
y:B(x)
t:(W x:A)B
53
The W type
Consider V = (W X : U )X
An element of : V can be thought of as a small type 0 : U with a function
1 : 0 V
We define inductively the equality on V (bissimulation)
sup 0 1 =V sup 0 1 is
Y X
Y X
(
1 x =V 1 y) (
1 x =V 1 y)
x:0 y:0
y:0 x:0
55
Axiom of choice
Y X
x:A
y:B
R x y)
f :AB
x:A
R x (f x)
57
ZFC, ZF, topos theory, CZF, type theory, impredicative type theory w.r.t.
extensional axiom of choice
countable choice
impredicativity
extensionality
classical logic
58