From: Matt Oliveri <atmacen@gmail.com>
To: Homotopy Type Theory <HomotopyTypeTheory@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [HoTT] Equality in the Model Type Framework
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2018 11:11:34 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <0137f575-f414-47ea-9264-47ddbf5d38f6@googlegroups.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAOvivQxH_wQLkCoadp0rduAsHuRUS3CzBWpkdeMn+G=w23=ZfA@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3167 bytes --]
On Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 12:50:03 AM UTC-4, Michael Shulman wrote:
>
> We are still working out the details.
I'm looking forward to more details!
Semantically, I would certainly
> expect a "theory" in a DTT to be allowed to assert judgmental
> equalities. But such theories might be poorly behaved syntactically:
>
allowing the "user" to add judgmental equalities in a DTT tends to
> break lots of nice type-theoretic properties.
Basically; yeah.
In more detail, your approach seems to have three stages:
1) specify a mode theory
2) specify a theory in the resulting doctrine
3) use it
I figured the user could only add judgmental equalities in stage (2). The
equations in stage (1) seem like something else (usually "WLOGed" away in
the syntax), and the equations in stage (3) are typal equality.
I was guessing/hoping that the nice syntactic properties would only cover
the type system corresponding to the doctrine, and not cover the additional
constants and equations added in stage (2).
Dan already pointed out in his third Hausdorff talk that MLTT doesn't have
the subformula property. So it sure looks like user-specified constants and
equations at stage (2) rules that out. My impression was that you should
not expect the subformula property in a theory with logical strength.
Arbitrary equations rules out normalization too, because they could add
equality reflection. Although I don't recommend it, it should be possible
to impose a restricted way of adding equations, so that the system remains
normalizing. Justifying such a framework would be tricky without putting an
upper bound on the proof-theoretic strength of the normalization
metatheorem.
With equality reflection, the operational semantics and judgmental equality
become separate. Computational type theory is a way of getting a lot of
flexibility for equations while keeping canonicity. (Strong normalization
is not available.) Judgmental equality of t and t' in type T means that
computations t and t' implement the same element of T. But it seems like
that would be a big detour for you.
Really though, I don't think the nice syntactic properties should be a
concern when designing the *categorical* semantics of a full blown
dependent type theory. That's why I was hoping they would only pertain to
the bare doctrine.
this isn't
> really a question about our modal DTT specifically but just more
> generally about what a dependently typed "theory" is.
>
Wait a minute. Looking back at your "What Is an n-Theory?" post, you were
thinking of things like HoTT and cubical type theory as doctrines. I don't
understand how this fits with the modal type framework. A mode theory will
not be enough to specify that kind of doctrine, will it? And if those are
doctrines, why do theories also get judgmental equations? What are theories
used for?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Homotopy Type Theory" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to HomotopyTypeTheory+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 4053 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-07-04 18:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-07-03 3:38 Matt Oliveri
2018-07-03 16:17 ` [HoTT] " Matt Oliveri
2018-07-04 4:49 ` [HoTT] " Michael Shulman
2018-07-04 18:11 ` Matt Oliveri [this message]
2018-07-05 4:00 ` Michael Shulman
2018-07-05 5:59 ` Matt Oliveri
2018-07-05 14:31 ` Michael Shulman
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=0137f575-f414-47ea-9264-47ddbf5d38f6@googlegroups.com \
--to=atmacen@gmail.com \
--cc=HomotopyTypeTheory@googlegroups.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).