From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Received: by 10.107.5.133 with SMTP id 127mr1254755iof.18.1507911817122; Fri, 13 Oct 2017 09:23:37 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: homotopytypetheory@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.36.17.75 with SMTP id 72ls284572itf.10.gmail; Fri, 13 Oct 2017 09:23:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.107.166.202 with SMTP id p193mr1307432ioe.79.1507911816329; Fri, 13 Oct 2017 09:23:36 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1507911816; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=EyQTnV+Eett2AJ6DHMywaolg02ACIjM3Zp/ABKgaju1JMMBxnY/olTMnoyjiLylQG5 Ya+hNiDMvocPk1GJpsqbvJt8whjS0tfmoXJrupHD01x/TczXk0OTvO2tfUmPUJwzmfNc AYsfDDLzNCM7k2yMHWOmjYj7OH/cNYEyc1qLxroCPJQsoaKHDkMPTHgHQPko05TUl+Ab LiZVDfy1OwTwGVE5BWVCbaCCgwaVP11FBnGfUsMTt6J5u9BgcVIpCqHQZDB3FLhMGiq0 gmCW5DGB76b2XnjFluFDH//kk8GKSUEKyCyLHYGFU1G0LYelWa0mDsB7pBU1/53/EXoB Kzkw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :references:in-reply-to:mime-version:dkim-signature :arc-authentication-results; bh=ehR4GY1m5TLvrHQJJIxI5uzrSA7vFImBx8S4WGliUV4=; b=NByFqcH6vkKPdS+eRDcjiJ2Ofb/p6CPOvAR+NdRx6T0reAJzTAwgBefwQ0i427A31n WL5MzaQBaPj7nrNKXoDG/Y0cD4CjAa7i/EN+yJVi//wk0RowiVpKcHOKNLvDuei1JKqY PgGnPgACnnEz2Q0T3k5KDsgtbauIN2nmvn8QmugGnbnFnnx3AcwROcklqLhDy/nFpTEM r3GaKzANy/jTFeBhKReBBImXBrZORwsocZ6uRuzL7pRIQTs3rwXR+xsruh9Brr9B5vuA FmhJmo9LtR984mSnjjUHsLajIW5FGNm8g5LxfltBSJ+x/KP2YrRJJlgB6WUJebZpCzd4 VimA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; gmr-mx.google.com; dkim=pass head...@sandiego-edu.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.s=20150623 header.b=DvSEPRSl; spf=neutral (google.com: 2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::233 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of shu...@sandiego.edu) smtp.mailfrom=shu...@sandiego.edu Return-Path: Received: from mail-qt0-x233.google.com (mail-qt0-x233.google.com. [2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::233]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 72si165067iti.2.2017.10.13.09.23.36 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 13 Oct 2017 09:23:36 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::233 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of shu...@sandiego.edu) client-ip=2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::233; Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; dkim=pass head...@sandiego-edu.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.s=20150623 header.b=DvSEPRSl; spf=neutral (google.com: 2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::233 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of shu...@sandiego.edu) smtp.mailfrom=shu...@sandiego.edu Received: by mail-qt0-x233.google.com with SMTP id k31so20553401qta.6 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2017 09:23:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sandiego-edu.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ehR4GY1m5TLvrHQJJIxI5uzrSA7vFImBx8S4WGliUV4=; b=DvSEPRSluQW+M3pzBbgkb3kgBdhYartIy8VblCMHjtaZdpQ+KMQC14m96QQG5wgXw/ mBw1xlGC8xA/oLdOTXyo9euLZNHdoTT9jNNJ23Hdqkgpdi6Td9ti8ZGHuC85srwgzgIo oUIJfaHshbw9jHR3+7Ev29RlFX8dgxZCWMtzpjLt43+qKC0gEdFJ3NWpSn682bB6Or+2 Hbg1JKsSQAm/E5qzqHWaKSrfKPPBicovnDAvuVrYjYBTVS/IhIhumn44deZjUPIsixFJ wF1moKwfYvSc8umE1GAw2R8s81tpWfpiUR4+XSM6AfTEaw4KrDcG7as2JW+svBAt7w9/ PhpQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaUW61WSYKPStsaFY2X5ziPs04TvzOun0PxomAmJZNh3X2LIkLAT jWw0BNrmXMeXzSkLQEzYMpZF5Ys4 X-Received: by 10.37.175.204 with SMTP id d12mr1337292ybj.46.1507911815664; Fri, 13 Oct 2017 09:23:35 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from mail-oi0-f52.google.com (mail-oi0-f52.google.com. [209.85.218.52]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e206sm752231ywa.48.2017.10.13.09.23.35 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 13 Oct 2017 09:23:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oi0-f52.google.com with SMTP id c202so14949382oih.9 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2017 09:23:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.157.66.221 with SMTP id c29mr1105455otj.332.1507911814610; Fri, 13 Oct 2017 09:23:34 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.157.7.199 with HTTP; Fri, 13 Oct 2017 09:23:13 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <489BE14C-B343-49D1-AB51-19CD54B04761@gmail.com> References: <7ACEB87C-CF6E-4ACC-A803-2E44D7D0374A@gmail.com> <489BE14C-B343-49D1-AB51-19CD54B04761@gmail.com> From: Michael Shulman Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 09:23:13 -0700 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: [HoTT] A small observation on cumulativity and the failure of initiality To: Steve Awodey Cc: Dimitris Tsementzis , Homotopy Type Theory Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To my understanding, there are two different essentially-algebraic theories involved: type theory (or more precisely, its derivations) is essentially by its definition the initial object in one of them, but the one we're interested in (the appropriate sort of category) is a different theory with different operations. For instance, in a category we have composition as a basic operation, but in type theory composition is admissible rather than primitive. So there is always something to prove in relating the two, even when we know that both are essentially-algebraic. But my main point was that the essentially-algebraic theory to which the syntax belongs consists of derivations rather than terms, so it can be essentially-algebraic even if terms don't have unique types. On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 9:17 AM, Steve Awodey wrote: > > On Oct 13, 2017, at 11:50 AM, Michael Shulman wrote= : > > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 5:09 PM, Steve Awodey wrote: > > in order to have an (essentially) algebraic notion of type theory, which > will then automatically have initial algebras, etc., one should have the > typing of terms be an operation, so that every term has a unique type. In > particular, your (R1) violates this. Cumulativity is a practical convenie= nce > that can be added to the system by some syntactic conventions, but the re= al > system should have unique typing of terms. > > > I'm not convinced of that. When we define the syntactic model, a > morphism from A to B (say) is defined to be a term x:A |- t:B, where > the types A and B are given. So it's not clear that it matters > whether the same syntactic object t can also be typed as belonging to > some other type. I thought that the fundamental structure that we > induct over to prove initiality is the *derivation* of a typing > judgment, which includes the type that the term belongs to: two > derivations of x:A |- t:B and x:A |- t:C will necessarily be different > if B and C are different. In an ideal world, a judgment x:A |- t:B > would have at most one derivation, so that we could induct on > derivations and still consider the syntactic model to be built out of > terms rather than derivations. If not, then we need a separate step > of showing that different derivations of the same judgment yield the > same interpretation; but still, it's not clear to me that the > simultaneous derivability of x:A |- t:C is fatal. > > > well, good luck with that : - ) > > I=E2=80=99m just saying that if you want to represent type theory in an e= ssentially > algebraic form =E2=80=94 so that you automatically know you have free alg= ebras, > finitely-presented ones, products, sheaves of algebras, etc. =E2=80=94 th= en typing > of terms should be an operation. > > sure, it may be that there are other ways to get the syntactic category t= o > be initial w/resp. to some other notion of morphisms, but the algebraic > approach is how it=E2=80=99s done for other categorical logics, like topo= s, CCC, > coherent category, etc. I think Peter Dybjer has also shown explicitly t= hat > this works for CwFs, too. > > Steve > > > Moreover, I'm not an expert in this, but my understanding is that type > theorists often think of typing as having two "modes": type checking, > in which t and B are both given and a derivation of t:B is to be > found, and type synthesis or inference, in which t is given and B has > to be found along with a derivation of t:B. Which mode you are in at > which point in an algorithm depends on the structure of t and B. This > is not irrelevant to the question of initiality, since this sort of > "bidirectional type checking" can also be encoded in the judgmental > structure. > > Mike > > > Steve > > > On Oct 12, 2017, at 2:43 PM, Dimitris Tsementzis > wrote: > > Dear all, > > Let=E2=80=99s say a type theory TT is initial if its term model C_TT is i= nitial > among TT-models, where TT-models are models of the categorical semantics = of > type theory (e.g. CwFs/C-systems etc.) with enough extra structure to mod= el > the rules of TT. > > Then we have the following, building on an example of Voevodsky=E2=80=99s= . > > OBSERVATION. Any type theory which contains the following rules (admissib= le > or otherwise) > > =CE=93 |- T Type > =E2=80=94=E2=80=94=E2=80=94=E2=80=94=E2=80=94=E2=80=94=E2=80=94=E2=80=94 = (C) > =CE=93 |- B(T) Type > > =CE=93 |- t : T > =E2=80=94=E2=80=94=E2=80=94=E2=80=94=E2=80=94=E2=80=94=E2=80=94=E2=80=94 = (R1) > =CE=93 |- t : B(T) > > =CE=93 |- t : T > =E2=80=94=E2=80=94=E2=80=94=E2=80=94=E2=80=94=E2=80=94=E2=80=94=E2=80=94 = (R2) > =CE=93 |- p(t) : B(T) > > together with axioms that there is a type T0 in any context and a term t0= : > T0 in any context, is not initial. > > PROOF SKETCH. Let TT be such a type theory. Consider the type theory TT* > which replaces (R1) with the rule > > =CE=93 |- t : T > =E2=80=94=E2=80=94=E2=80=94=E2=80=94=E2=80=94=E2=80=94=E2=80=94=E2=80=94 = (R1*) > =CE=93 |- q(t) : B(T) > > i.e. the rule which adds an =E2=80=9Cannotation=E2=80=9D to a term t from= T that becomes a > term of B(T). Then the category of TT-models is isomorphic (in fact, equa= l) > to the category of TT*-models and in particular the term models C_TT and > C_TT* are both TT-models. But there are two distinct TT-model homomorphis= ms > from C_TT to C_TT*, one which sends p(t0) to pq(t0) and one which sends > p(t0) to qp(t0) (where p(t0) is regarded as an element of Tm_{C_TT} (empt= y, > B(B(T0))), i.e. of the set of terms of B(B(T0)) in the empty context as t= hey > are interpreted in the term model C_TT). > > COROLLARY. Any (non-trivial) type theory with a =E2=80=9Ccumulativity" ru= le for > universes, i.e. a rule of the form > > =CE=93 |- A : U0 > =E2=80=94=E2=80=94=E2=80=94=E2=80=94=E2=80=94=E2=80=94=E2=80=94=E2=80=94 = (U-cumul) > =CE=93 |- A : U1 > > is not initial. In particular, the type theory in the HoTT book is not > initial (because of (U-cumul)), and two-level type theory 2LTT as present= ed > here is not initial (because of the rule (FIB-PRE)). > > The moral of this small observation, if correct, is not of course that ty= pe > theories with the guilty rules cannot be made initial by appropriate > modifications to either the categorical semantics or the syntax, but rath= er > that a bit of care might be required for this task. One modification woul= d > be to define their categorical semantics to be such that certain identiti= es > hold that are not generally included in the definitions of > CwF/C-system/=E2=80=A6-gadgets (e.g. that the inclusion operation on univ= erses is > idempotent). Another modification would be to add annotations (by replaci= ng > (R1) with (R1*) as above) and extra definitional equalities ensuring that > annotations commute with type constructors. > > But without some such explicit modification, I think that the claim that > e.g. Book HoTT or 2LTT is initial cannot be considered obvious, or even > entirely correct. > > Best, > > Dimitris > > PS: Has something like the above regarding cumulativity rules has been > observed before =E2=80=94 if so can someone provide a relevant reference? > > > > > > -- > 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. > > > -- > 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. > > > -- > 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. > > > -- > 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.