skip to main content
article

Type theory in type theory using quotient inductive types

Published:11 January 2016Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

We present an internal formalisation of a type heory with dependent types in Type Theory using a special case of higher inductive types from Homotopy Type Theory which we call quotient inductive types (QITs). Our formalisation of type theory avoids referring to preterms or a typability relation but defines directly well typed objects by an inductive definition. We use the elimination principle to define the set-theoretic and logical predicate interpretation. The work has been formalized using the Agda system extended with QITs using postulates.

References

  1. nlab: Beck-chevalley condition. Available online. Accessed: 2015-10- 26.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. The Agda Wiki, 2015. Available online.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. T. Altenkirch and A. Kaposi. Supplementary material for the paper Type Theory in Type Theory using Quotient Inductive Types, 2015. Available online at the second author’s website.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. T. Altenkirch, M. Hofmann, and T. Streicher. Categorical reconstruction of a reduction free normalization proof. In D. Pitt, D. E. Rydeheard, and P. Johnstone, editors, Category Theory and Computer Science, LNCS 953, pages 182–199, 1995. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. T. Altenkirch, C. McBride, and W. Swierstra. Observational equality, now! In PLPV ’07: Proceedings of the 2007 workshop on Programming languages meets program verification, pages 57–68, New York, NY, USA, 2007. ACM. ISBN 978-1-59593-677-6.. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. T. Altenkirch, P. Morris, F. N. Forsberg, and A. Setzer. A categorical semantics for inductive-inductive definitions. In CALCO, pages 70– 84, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. J.-P. Bernardy, P. Jansson, and R. Paterson. Proofs for free — parametricity for dependent types. Journal of Functional Programming, 22(02):107–152, 2012.. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. M. Bezem, T. Coquand, and S. Huber. A model of type theory in cubical sets. In 19th International Conference on Types for Proofs and Programs (TYPES 2013), volume 26, pages 107–128, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. E. Brady. Idris, a general-purpose dependently typed programming language: Design and implementation. Journal of Functional Programming, 23:552–593, 2013. ISSN 1469-7653..Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. M. Brown and J. Palsberg. Self-representation in Girard’s System U. SIGPLAN Not., 50(1):471–484, Jan. 2015. ISSN 0362-1340.. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. J. Cartmell. Generalised algebraic theories and contextual categories. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 32:209–243, 1986.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. J. Chapman. Type theory should eat itself. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci., 228:21–36, Jan. 2009. ISSN 1571-0661.. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. N. Danielsson. A formalisation of a dependently typed language as an inductive-recursive family. In T. Altenkirch and C. McBride, editors, Types for Proofs and Programs, volume 4502 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 93–109. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2007. ISBN 978-3-540-74463-4. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. D. Devriese and F. Piessens. Typed syntactic meta-programming. In Proceedings of the 2013 ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Functional Programming (ICFP 2013), pages 73–85. ACM, September 2013. ISBN 978-1-4503-2326-0.. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. R. Diaconescu. Axiom of choice and complementation. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, 51(1):176–178, 1975.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. P. Dybjer. Internal type theory. In Types for Proofs and Programs, pages 120–134. Springer, 1996. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. M. Hedberg. A coherence theorem for Martin-Löf’s type theory. Journal of Functional Programming, 8(04):413–436, 1998. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. M. Hofmann. Extensional Concepts in Intensional Type Theory. Thesis. University of Edinburgh, Department of Computer Science, 1995.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. M. Hofmann. Syntax and semantics of dependent types. In Extensional Constructs in Intensional Type Theory, pages 13–54. Springer, 1997.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. G. Jaber, N. Tabareau, and M. Sozeau. Extending type theory with forcing. In Logic in Computer Science (LICS), 2012 27th Annual IEEE Symposium on, pages 395–404. IEEE, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. N. Kraus. Truncation Levels in Homotopy Type Theory. PhD thesis, University of Nottingham, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. D. Licata. Running circles around (in) your proof assistant; or, quotients that compute, 2011. Available online.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. C. McBride. Dependently Typed Functional Programs and their Proofs. PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh, 1999.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. C. McBride. Outrageous but meaningful coincidences: dependent type-safe syntax and evaluation. In B. C. d. S. Oliveira and M. Zalewski, editors, Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN Workshop on Generic Programming, pages 1–12. ACM, 2010. ISBN 978-1-4503- 0251-7.. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. N. Mendler. Quotient types via coequalizers in Martin-Löf type theory. In Proceedings of the Logical Frameworks Workshop, pages 349–361, 1990.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. F. Nordvall Forsberg. Inductive-inductive definitions. PhD thesis, Swansea University, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. U. Norell. Towards a practical programming language based on dependent type theory. PhD thesis, Chalmers University of Technology, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. F. Pfenning. Church and curry: Combining intrinsic and extrinsic typing. 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. A. Pitts. Quotient types in Agda. Private email, May 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. J. C. Reynolds. Types, abstraction and parametric polymorphism. In R. E. A. Mason, editor, Information Processing 83, Proceedings of the IFIP 9th World Computer Congress, pages 513–523. Elsevier Science Publishers B. V. (North-Holland), Amsterdam, 1983.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. The Univalent Foundations Program. Homotopy type theory: Univalent foundations of mathematics. Technical report, Institute for Advanced Study, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. V. Voevodsky. A type system with two kinds of identity types. Slides of a talk at the Institute for Advanced Study, February 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Type theory in type theory using quotient inductive types

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in

          Full Access

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader
          About Cookies On This Site

          We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

          Learn more

          Got it!