Hi All,

I just had a chance to catch up and watch the video which
prompted this disucussion last night.  I'm a huge fan of the idea
of trying to understand and make precise the notion of "higher
category with families" and what that might say about the syntax
of type theory.  So my question is probably mostly directed at
Thorsten, but I am curious to hear other people's responses as
well.

I guess my question is pretty simple: why should we insist,
as Thorsten seems to, that the "intrinsic" syntax of type
theory form a set?

I can, I think, anticipate the first response: well, we want to
have a type-checking algorithm.  And, in light of the conversion
rule, this typically means that we will have to reduce type
expressions to a normal form and check if they are equal.  Hence,
if we don't have decidability of the syntax, we cannot have
decidability of typechecking.  Am I right that this is the principle
motivation for having decidable syntax?

But, then, this seems to be a statement about *extrinsic* syntax.  If,
as Thorsten advocates, we somehow manage to produce a highly
structured, internal description of the syntax of type theory,
then typechecking for this syntax is, by definition, unnecessary!  After
all,
the whole point is that in such a setup, only the well-typed terms
even make sense (i.e., are typeable in the meta-language).

So from an internal perspective, I cannot think of any reason to
insist on decidability.  And consequently, insisting that an
internal higher category with families be univalent does not seem
in any way strange to me.

But maybe there is some other objection that I'm not seeing?

Eric

On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 7:07 PM Martín Hötzel Escardó <
escardo...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Thursday, 31 May 2018 20:02:51 UTC+1, Alexander Kurz wrote:
>
>>
>> > On 31 May 2018, at 12:05, Michael Shulman <shu...@sandiego.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> > It sounds like Thorsten and are both starting to repeat ourselves, so
>> > we should probably spare the patience of everyone else on the list
>> > pretty soon.  I'll just make my own hopefully-final point by saying
>> > that if "properties of the typed algebraic syntax" can imply that the
>> > untyped stuff we write on the page has a *unique* typed denotation,
>> > independent of a particular typechecking algorithm, as mentioned in my
>> > last email, then I'll (probably) be satisfied.
>>
>> I am interested in this question of translating the untyped stuff we
>> write on the page into type theory.
>>
>> To give a concrete example of what I am thinking of as untyped, but
>> nevertheless conceptual and structural mathematics, I would point at Tom
>> Leinster’s elegant description of the solution to the problem of Buffon’s
>> needle, see the first paragraphs of the section “What is category theory?”
>> at
>> https://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2010/03/a_perspective_on_higher_catego.html
>>
>> I call this argument type free because I see no obvious or canonical way
>> to make the types precise enough in order to implement the proof in, say,
>> Agda. Even if this can be done, it is still important that mathematicians
>> can discuss this argument first without having to make the types precise.
>> So there will always be mathematics outside of type theory.
>>
>
>  I don't understand why you call this argument untyped. Do you feel that a
> formalization in set theory, which is untyped, would be easier than a
> formalization in type theory? How is untypedness helping with this
> argument?
>
> Martin
>
> --
> 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 HomotopyTypeThe...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>