Discussion of Homotopy Type Theory and Univalent Foundations
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Thorsten Altenkirch <Thorsten.Altenkirch@nottingham.ac.uk>
To: Felix Rech <s9ferech@gmail.com>,
	Homotopy Type Theory <homotopytypetheory@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [HoTT] Why do we need judgmental equality?
Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2019 12:30:02 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <730FBE36-8E4F-45F5-9DB9-3B3A04E708FA@nottingham.ac.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bcd56e20-1961-400b-91b4-2ca8c042d0e5@googlegroups.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3110 bytes --]

Hi,

what we need is a strict equality on all types. If we would state the laws of type theory just using the equality type we would also need to add coherence laws. Since I would include the laws for substitution (never understood why substitution is different from application) this would include the laws for infinity categories and this would make even basic type theory certainly much more complicated if not unusable. Instead one introduces a 2-level system with strict equality on one level and weak equality on another. For historic and pragmatic reasons this is combined with the computational aspects of type theory which is expressed as judgemental equality. However, there are reasons to separate these concerns, e.g. to work with higher dimensional constructions in type theory such as semi-simplicial types it is helpful to work with hypothetical strict equalities (see our paper (http://www.cs.nott.ac.uk/~psztxa/publ/csl16.pdf).

I do think that the computational behaviour of type theory is important too. However, this can be expressed by demandic a form of computational adequacy, that is for every term there is a strictly equal normal form. It is not necessary that strict equality in general is decidable (indeed different applications of type theory may demand different decision procedures).

Thorsten


From: <homotopytypetheory@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Felix Rech <s9ferech@gmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, 30 January 2019 at 11:55
To: Homotopy Type Theory <homotopytypetheory@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [HoTT] Why do we need judgmental equality?

In section 1.1 of the HoTT book it says "In type theory there is also a need for an equality judgment." Currently it seems to me like one could, in principle, replace substitution along judgmental equality with explicit transports if one added a few sensible rules to the type theory. Is there a fundamental reason why the equality judgment is still necessary?

Thanks,
Felix Rech
--
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<mailto:HomotopyTypeTheory+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.




This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee
and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
message in error, please contact the sender and delete the email and
attachment. 

Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not
necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham. Email
communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored 
where permitted by law.




-- 
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 #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6179 bytes --]

  parent reply	other threads:[~2019-02-09 12:30 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 71+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-01-30 11:54 Felix Rech
2019-02-05 23:00 ` [HoTT] " Matt Oliveri
2019-02-06  4:13   ` Anders Mörtberg
2019-02-09 11:55     ` Felix Rech
2019-02-16 15:59     ` Thorsten Altenkirch
2019-02-17  1:25       ` Michael Shulman
2019-02-17  7:56         ` Thorsten Altenkirch
2019-02-17  9:14           ` Matt Oliveri
2019-02-17  9:18           ` Michael Shulman
2019-02-17 10:52             ` Thorsten Altenkirch
2019-02-17 11:35               ` streicher
2019-02-17 11:44                 ` Thorsten Altenkirch
2019-02-17 14:24                   ` Bas Spitters
2019-02-17 19:36                   ` Thomas Streicher
2019-02-17 21:41                     ` Thorsten Altenkirch
2019-02-17 12:08             ` Matt Oliveri
2019-02-17 12:13               ` Matt Oliveri
2019-02-20  0:22               ` Michael Shulman
2019-02-17 14:22           ` [Agda] " Andreas Abel
2019-02-17  9:05         ` Matt Oliveri
2019-02-17 13:29         ` Nicolai Kraus
2019-02-08 21:19 ` Martín Hötzel Escardó
2019-02-08 23:31   ` Valery Isaev
2019-02-09  1:41     ` Nicolai Kraus
2019-02-09  8:04       ` Valery Isaev
2019-02-09  1:58     ` Jon Sterling
2019-02-09  8:16       ` Valery Isaev
2019-02-09  1:30   ` Nicolai Kraus
2019-02-09 11:38   ` Thomas Streicher
2019-02-09 13:29     ` Thorsten Altenkirch
2019-02-09 13:40       ` Théo Winterhalter
2019-02-09 11:57   ` Felix Rech
2019-02-09 12:39     ` Martín Hötzel Escardó
2019-02-11  6:58     ` Matt Oliveri
2019-02-18 17:37   ` Martín Hötzel Escardó
2019-02-18 19:22     ` Licata, Dan
2019-02-18 20:23       ` Martín Hötzel Escardó
2019-02-09 11:53 ` Felix Rech
2019-02-09 14:04   ` Nicolai Kraus
2019-02-09 14:26     ` Gabriel Scherer
2019-02-09 14:44     ` Jon Sterling
2019-02-09 20:34       ` Michael Shulman
2019-02-11 12:17         ` Matt Oliveri
2019-02-11 13:04           ` Michael Shulman
2019-02-11 15:09             ` Matt Oliveri
2019-02-11 17:20               ` Michael Shulman
2019-02-11 18:17                 ` Thorsten Altenkirch
2019-02-11 18:45                   ` Alexander Kurz
2019-02-11 22:58                     ` Thorsten Altenkirch
2019-02-12  2:09                       ` Jacques Carette
2019-02-12 11:03                   ` Matt Oliveri
2019-02-12 15:36                     ` Thorsten Altenkirch
2019-02-12 15:59                       ` Matt Oliveri
2019-02-11 19:27                 ` Matt Oliveri
2019-02-11 21:49                   ` Michael Shulman
2019-02-12  9:01                     ` Matt Oliveri
2019-02-12 17:54                       ` Michael Shulman
2019-02-13  6:37                         ` Matt Oliveri
2019-02-13 10:01                           ` Ansten Mørch Klev
2019-02-11 20:11                 ` Matt Oliveri
2019-02-11  8:23       ` Matt Oliveri
2019-02-11 13:03         ` Jon Sterling
2019-02-11 13:22           ` Matt Oliveri
2019-02-11 13:37             ` Jon Sterling
2019-02-11  6:51   ` Matt Oliveri
2019-02-09 12:30 ` Thorsten Altenkirch [this message]
2019-02-11  7:01   ` [HoTT] " Matt Oliveri
2019-02-11  8:04     ` Valery Isaev
2019-02-11  8:28       ` Matt Oliveri
2019-02-11  8:37         ` Matt Oliveri
2019-02-11  9:32           ` Rafaël Bocquet

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=730FBE36-8E4F-45F5-9DB9-3B3A04E708FA@nottingham.ac.uk \
    --to=thorsten.altenkirch@nottingham.ac.uk \
    --cc=homotopytypetheory@googlegroups.com \
    --cc=s9ferech@gmail.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).