*[HoTT] two's complement integers@ 2021-03-04 20:43 Michael Shulman2021-03-04 21:11 ` Martin Escardo 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Michael Shulman @ 2021-03-04 20:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: HomotopyTypeTheory@googlegroups.com Has anyone considered the following HIT definition of the integers? data ℤ : Type where zero : ℤ -- 0 negOne : ℤ -- -1 dbl : ℤ → ℤ -- n ↦ 2n sucDbl : ℤ → ℤ -- n ↦ 2n+1 dblZero : dbl zero ≡ zero -- 2·0 = 0 sucDblNegOne : sucDbl negOne ≡ negOne -- 2·(-1)+1 = -1 The idea is that it's an arbitrary-precision version of little-endian two's-complement, with sucDbl and dbl representing 1 and 0 respectively, and negOne and zero representing the highest-order sign bit 1 and 0 respectively. Thus for instance sucDbl (dbl (sucDbl (sucDbl zero))) = 01101 = 13 dbl (sucDbl (dbl (dbl negOne))) = 10010 = -14 The two path-constructors enable arbitrary expansion of the precision, e.g. 01101 = 001101 = 0001101 = ... 10010 = 110010 = 1110010 = ... This seems like a fairly nice definition: it should already be a set without any truncation, it's binary rather than unary, and the arithmetic operations can be defined in the usual digit-by-digit way without splitting into cases by sign. Mathematically speaking, it represents integers by their images in the 2-adic integers, with zero and negOne representing infinite tails of 0s and 1s respectively. (An arbitrary 2-adic integer, of course, is just a stream of bits.) Best, Mike -- 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. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/HomotopyTypeTheory/CAOvivQw4h46DtKATiwUvm%3DL%3DjEGng2XdYGAhKbi7fhis%2By_TPw%40mail.gmail.com. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

*Re: [HoTT] two's complement integers2021-03-04 20:43 [HoTT] two's complement integers Michael Shulman@ 2021-03-04 21:11 ` Martin Escardo2021-03-04 22:05 ` Michael Shulman 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Martin Escardo @ 2021-03-04 21:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Michael Shulman, HomotopyTypeTheory@googlegroups.com Nice. I haven't seen this. But I have considered two similar things: (1) The natural numbers defined by 0 2x+1 2x+2 This is not a HIT - just a normal inductive types. (2) A HIT for the dyadics numbers D in the interval [0,1] with constructors data 𝔹 : Type₀ where L R : 𝔹 -- 0 and 1 l r : 𝔹 → 𝔹 -- x ↦ x/2 and x ↦ (x+1)/2 eqL : L ≡ l L -- 0 = 0/2 eqM : l R ≡ r L -- 1/2 = (0+1)/2 eqR : R ≡ r R -- 1 = (1+1)/2 Then, like your HIT, this is automatically a set without the need of truncation. But I didn't find an simple proof of this. Together with Alex Rice, we proved this by showing it to be equivalent to another type which is easily seen to be a aset: data 𝔻 : Type₀ where middle : 𝔻 left : 𝔻 → 𝔻 right : 𝔻 → 𝔻 data 𝔹' : Type₀ where L' : 𝔹' R' : 𝔹' η : 𝔻 → 𝔹' l' : 𝔹' → 𝔹' l' L' = L' l' R' = η middle l' (η x) = η (left x) r' : 𝔹' → 𝔹' r' L' = η middle r' R' = R' r' (η x) = η (right x) eqL' : L' ≡ l' L' eqM' : l' R' ≡ r' L' eqR' : R' ≡ r' R' eqL' = refl eqM' = refl eqR' = refl Then the types 𝔹 and 𝔹' are equivalent, and clearly 𝔹' is a set because it has decidable equality. Moreover, the "binary systems" (𝔹,L,R,l,r,eqL,eqM,eqR) and (𝔹',L',R',l',r',eqL',eqM',eqR') are isomorphic. (And we implemented in this in Cubical Agda.) I wonder if your definition of the integers with the HIT is isomorphic to an inductively defined version without a HIT as above, and this is how you proved it to be a set. Martin On 04/03/2021 20:43, Michael Shulman wrote: > Has anyone considered the following HIT definition of the integers? > > data ℤ : Type where > zero : ℤ -- 0 > negOne : ℤ -- -1 > dbl : ℤ → ℤ -- n ↦ 2n > sucDbl : ℤ → ℤ -- n ↦ 2n+1 > dblZero : dbl zero ≡ zero -- 2·0 = 0 > sucDblNegOne : sucDbl negOne ≡ negOne -- 2·(-1)+1 = -1 > > The idea is that it's an arbitrary-precision version of little-endian > two's-complement, with sucDbl and dbl representing 1 and 0 > respectively, and negOne and zero representing the highest-order sign > bit 1 and 0 respectively. Thus for instance > > sucDbl (dbl (sucDbl (sucDbl zero))) = 01101 = 13 > dbl (sucDbl (dbl (dbl negOne))) = 10010 = -14 > > The two path-constructors enable arbitrary expansion of the precision, e.g. > > 01101 = 001101 = 0001101 = ... > 10010 = 110010 = 1110010 = ... > > This seems like a fairly nice definition: it should already be a set > without any truncation, it's binary rather than unary, and the > arithmetic operations can be defined in the usual digit-by-digit way > without splitting into cases by sign. Mathematically speaking, it > represents integers by their images in the 2-adic integers, with zero > and negOne representing infinite tails of 0s and 1s respectively. (An > arbitrary 2-adic integer, of course, is just a stream of bits.) > > Best, > Mike > -- 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. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/HomotopyTypeTheory/9eefbc82-ba49-b101-433d-c3c1e452ecda%40googlemail.com. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

*Re: [HoTT] two's complement integers2021-03-04 21:11 ` Martin Escardo@ 2021-03-04 22:05 ` Michael Shulman2021-03-04 22:42 ` Martin Escardo 2021-03-04 23:16 ` Nicolai Kraus 0 siblings, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Michael Shulman @ 2021-03-04 22:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Martin Escardo;+Cc:HomotopyTypeTheory@googlegroups.com On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 1:11 PM Martin Escardo <escardo.martin@gmail.com> wrote: > I wonder if your definition of the integers with the HIT is isomorphic > to an inductively defined version without a HIT as above, and this is > how you proved it to be a set. No, I just did an encode-decode. I formalized most of it, up to some obviously true lemmas about squares and cubes. I thought for a little bit about whether there is an equivalent "lower" inductive version, but nothing immediately occurred to me. Do you have a suggestion? -- 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. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/HomotopyTypeTheory/CAOvivQwsn-MLHzw%3DW5wxZ49Bp%2BHS9nr261YQJLgQ9E60K2Pcmg%40mail.gmail.com. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

*Re: [HoTT] two's complement integers2021-03-04 22:05 ` Michael Shulman@ 2021-03-04 22:42 ` Martin Escardo2021-03-04 23:16 ` Nicolai Kraus 1 sibling, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Martin Escardo @ 2021-03-04 22:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Michael Shulman, Martin Escardo;+Cc:HomotopyTypeTheory@googlegroups.com On 04/03/2021 22:05, Michael Shulman wrote: > On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 1:11 PM Martin Escardo <escardo.martin@gmail.com> wrote: >> I wonder if your definition of the integers with the HIT is isomorphic >> to an inductively defined version without a HIT as above, and this is >> how you proved it to be a set. > > No, I just did an encode-decode. I formalized most of it, up to some > obviously true lemmas about squares and cubes. > > I thought for a little bit about whether there is an equivalent > "lower" inductive version, but nothing immediately occurred to me. Do > you have a suggestion? For example, take ℤ' = ℕ + ℕ and define the functions you have in your hit and prove the equations you have in your HIT. Then using the HIT universal property you get a function from your ℤ to this ℤ', and conversely you define a function from ℤ' to ℤ "manually". This is what Alex Rice and I did to prove that our 𝔹 and 𝔹' are equivalent. The cubes don't disappear completely, of course. But there were much fewer cubes than when we tried to prove directly that 𝔹 is a set, and we gave up because the code was getting too long and unpleasant, with too many cases to check. The indirect version was much shorter and pleasing. 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 HomotopyTypeTheory+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/HomotopyTypeTheory/8f4c4a68-dbe0-055b-3462-3230cd09c86f%40gmail.com. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

*Re: [HoTT] two's complement integers2021-03-04 22:05 ` Michael Shulman 2021-03-04 22:42 ` Martin Escardo@ 2021-03-04 23:16 ` Nicolai Kraus2021-03-05 2:27 ` Michael Shulman 1 sibling, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Nicolai Kraus @ 2021-03-04 23:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: HomotopyTypeTheory [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1114 bytes --] On 04/03/2021 22:05, Michael Shulman wrote: > I thought for a little bit about whether there is an equivalent > "lower" inductive version, but nothing immediately occurred to me. Do > you have a suggestion? I'm not sure what the precise thing is that you're looking for because, without further specification, any standard definition of Z would qualify :-) The HIT is neat, but wouldn't it in practice behave pretty similar to a standard representation via binary lists? E.g. something like Unit + Bool * List(Bool), where inl(*) is zero, the first Bool is the sign, and you add a 1 in front of the list in order to get a positive integer. What's the advantage of the HIT - maybe one can avoid case distinctions? Nicolai -- 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. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/HomotopyTypeTheory/58a0a515-d8fa-4eb2-9555-d3a41fdee728%40gmail.com. [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3716 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

*Re: [HoTT] two's complement integers2021-03-04 23:16 ` Nicolai Kraus@ 2021-03-05 2:27 ` Michael Shulman2021-03-05 3:02 ` Jason Gross 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Michael Shulman @ 2021-03-05 2:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Nicolai Kraus;+Cc:HomotopyTypeTheory On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 3:16 PM Nicolai Kraus <nicolai.kraus@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm not sure what the precise thing is that you're looking for because, without further specification, any standard definition of Z would qualify :-) Yes, that seems to be what Martin suggested too with ℕ + ℕ. It seemed to me as though the distance between ℕ + ℕ and my ℤ is greater than the distance between his 𝔹 and 𝔹', but maybe not in any important way. > The HIT is neat, but wouldn't it in practice behave pretty similar to a standard representation via binary lists? E.g. something like Unit + Bool * List(Bool), where inl(*) is zero, the first Bool is the sign, and you add a 1 in front of the list in order to get a positive integer. What's the advantage of the HIT - maybe one can avoid case distinctions? Is there a non-HIT binary representation that can be interpreted as two's-complement (thereby avoiding case distinctions on sign)? I haven't been able to figure out a way to do that with mere lists of booleans. -- 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. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/HomotopyTypeTheory/CAOvivQwtAMVnOG7D_A_s1EMAum4fv_x945MLB%2B01Y_pMdEKC2w%40mail.gmail.com. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

*Re: [HoTT] two's complement integers2021-03-05 2:27 ` Michael Shulman@ 2021-03-05 3:02 ` Jason Gross2021-03-05 4:41 ` Michael Shulman 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Jason Gross @ 2021-03-05 3:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Michael Shulman;+Cc:Nicolai Kraus, HomotopyTypeTheory@googlegroups.com [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2429 bytes --] Note that the Coq standard library Z is a binary representation of integers and Z.testbit gives access to the infinite twos-compliment representation. Of course, it makes use of case-distinctions on sign to define it, but you go bit-by-bit; if the number is negative, you just invert the bit before returning it. Is there something you're after by having the representation not encode sign bits separately? On Thu, Mar 4, 2021, 21:27 Michael Shulman <shulman@sandiego.edu> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 3:16 PM Nicolai Kraus <nicolai.kraus@gmail.com> > wrote: > > I'm not sure what the precise thing is that you're looking for because, > without further specification, any standard definition of Z would qualify > :-) > > Yes, that seems to be what Martin suggested too with ℕ + ℕ. It seemed > to me as though the distance between ℕ + ℕ and my ℤ is greater than > the distance between his 𝔹 and 𝔹', but maybe not in any important > way. > > > The HIT is neat, but wouldn't it in practice behave pretty similar to a > standard representation via binary lists? E.g. something like Unit + Bool * > List(Bool), where inl(*) is zero, the first Bool is the sign, and you add a > 1 in front of the list in order to get a positive integer. What's the > advantage of the HIT - maybe one can avoid case distinctions? > > Is there a non-HIT binary representation that can be interpreted as > two's-complement (thereby avoiding case distinctions on sign)? I > haven't been able to figure out a way to do that with mere lists of > booleans. > > -- > 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. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/HomotopyTypeTheory/CAOvivQwtAMVnOG7D_A_s1EMAum4fv_x945MLB%2B01Y_pMdEKC2w%40mail.gmail.com > . > -- 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. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/HomotopyTypeTheory/CAKObCaqiyUcB%2BFrbvPmR-eS5ZMsb2CTVCtVbAYZeMUcOzCpmbA%40mail.gmail.com. [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3413 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

*2021-03-05 3:02 ` Jason GrossRe: [HoTT] two's complement integers@ 2021-03-05 4:41 ` Michael Shulman0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Michael Shulman @ 2021-03-05 4:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jason Gross;+Cc:Nicolai Kraus, HomotopyTypeTheory@googlegroups.com I don't have a particular application in mind at the moment. It just struck me how 2-adic integers have such simple coinductive definitions of the arithmetic operations, without any case distinctions at all, and I wondered whether there was a definition of plain integers with a similar property. It seems annoying to have to constantly case-split on a sign bit. I guess a lower-inductive representation could take advantage of the fact that the 2-adic representation of an integer other than 0 or -1 has a unique largest digit that differs from all larger digits, i.e. it's either ...0000 (i.e. 0) ...1111 (i.e. -1) ...0001 + arbitrary bit string ...1110 + arbitrary bit string This involves more case splits when defining arithmetic, but it would probably be an easy set to show that the HIT one is equivalent to. On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 7:02 PM Jason Gross <jasongross9@gmail.com> wrote: > > Note that the Coq standard library Z is a binary representation of integers and Z.testbit gives access to the infinite twos-compliment representation. Of course, it makes use of case-distinctions on sign to define it, but you go bit-by-bit; if the number is negative, you just invert the bit before returning it. Is there something you're after by having the representation not encode sign bits separately? > > On Thu, Mar 4, 2021, 21:27 Michael Shulman <shulman@sandiego.edu> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 3:16 PM Nicolai Kraus <nicolai.kraus@gmail.com> wrote: >> > I'm not sure what the precise thing is that you're looking for because, without further specification, any standard definition of Z would qualify :-) >> >> Yes, that seems to be what Martin suggested too with ℕ + ℕ. It seemed >> to me as though the distance between ℕ + ℕ and my ℤ is greater than >> the distance between his 𝔹 and 𝔹', but maybe not in any important >> way. >> >> > The HIT is neat, but wouldn't it in practice behave pretty similar to a standard representation via binary lists? E.g. something like Unit + Bool * List(Bool), where inl(*) is zero, the first Bool is the sign, and you add a 1 in front of the list in order to get a positive integer. What's the advantage of the HIT - maybe one can avoid case distinctions? >> >> Is there a non-HIT binary representation that can be interpreted as >> two's-complement (thereby avoiding case distinctions on sign)? I >> haven't been able to figure out a way to do that with mere lists of >> booleans. >> >> -- >> 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. >> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/HomotopyTypeTheory/CAOvivQwtAMVnOG7D_A_s1EMAum4fv_x945MLB%2B01Y_pMdEKC2w%40mail.gmail.com. > > -- > 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. > To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/HomotopyTypeTheory/CAKObCaqiyUcB%2BFrbvPmR-eS5ZMsb2CTVCtVbAYZeMUcOzCpmbA%40mail.gmail.com. -- 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. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/HomotopyTypeTheory/CAOvivQxy2EJNScHu9Y2U%3DGLiHDrDxDq-Kg8Dz9TrFk3ZepiW8Q%40mail.gmail.com. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2021-03-05 4:41 UTC | newest]Thread overview:8+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2021-03-04 20:43 [HoTT] two's complement integers Michael Shulman 2021-03-04 21:11 ` Martin Escardo 2021-03-04 22:05 ` Michael Shulman 2021-03-04 22:42 ` Martin Escardo 2021-03-04 23:16 ` Nicolai Kraus 2021-03-05 2:27 ` Michael Shulman 2021-03-05 3:02 ` Jason Gross 2021-03-05 4:41 ` Michael Shulman

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).