skip to main content
research-article
Open Access
Artifacts Available
Artifacts Evaluated & Functional

Constructing quotient inductive-inductive types

Published:02 January 2019Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Quotient inductive-inductive types (QIITs) generalise inductive types in two ways: a QIIT can have more than one sort and the later sorts can be indexed over the previous ones. In addition, equality constructors are also allowed. We work in a setting with uniqueness of identity proofs, hence we use the term QIIT instead of higher inductive-inductive type. An example of a QIIT is the well-typed (intrinsic) syntax of type theory quotiented by conversion. In this paper first we specify finitary QIITs using a domain-specific type theory which we call the theory of signatures. The syntax of the theory of signatures is given by a QIIT as well. Then, using this syntax we show that all specified QIITs exist and they have a dependent elimination principle. We also show that algebras of a signature form a category with families (CwF) and use the internal language of this CwF to show that dependent elimination is equivalent to initiality.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

a2-kovacs.webm

References

  1. Michael Abbott, Thorsten Altenkirch, and Neil Ghani. 2005. Containers — Constructing Strictly Positive Types. Theoretical Computer Science 342 (September 2005), 3–27. Applied Semantics: Selected Topics. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Benedikt Ahrens and Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine. 2017. Displayed Categories. arXiv: arXiv:1705.04296Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Thorsten Altenkirch, Paolo Capriotti, Gabe Dijkstra, Nicolai Kraus, and Fredrik Nordvall Forsberg. 2018. Quotient inductiveinductive types. In International Conference on Foundations of Software Science and Computation Structures. Springer, 293–310.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Thorsten Altenkirch and Ambrus Kaposi. 2016. Type theory in type theory using quotient inductive types. In Proceedings of the 43rd Annual ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, POPL 2016, St. Petersburg, FL, USA, January 20 - 22, 2016 , Rastislav Bodik and Rupak Majumdar (Eds.). ACM, 18–29. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Robert Atkey, Neil Ghani, and Patricia Johann. 2014. A relationally parametric model of dependent type theory. In The 41st Annual ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, POPL ’14, San Diego, CA, USA, January 20-21, 2014 , Suresh Jagannathan and Peter Sewell (Eds.). ACM, 503–516. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Steve Awodey, Jonas Frey, and Sam Speight. 2018. Impredicative Encodings of (Higher) Inductive Types. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM/IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS ’18) . ACM, New York, NY, USA, 76–85. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Henning Basold and Herman Geuvers. 2016. Type Theory Based on Dependent Inductive and Coinductive Types. In Proceedings of LICS ’16 , Martin Grohe, Eric Koskinen, and Natarajan Shankar (Eds.). ACM, 327–336. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Henning Basold, Herman Geuvers, and Niels van der Weide. 2017. Higher Inductive Types in Programming. Journal of Universal Computer Science 23, 1 (jan 2017), 63–88.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Jean-Philippe Bernardy, Patrik Jansson, and Ross Paterson. 2012. Proofs for Free — Parametricity for Dependent Types. Journal of Functional Programming 22, 02 (2012), 107–152. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Paolo Capriotti and Nicolai Kraus. 2017. Univalent Higher Categories via Complete Semi-Segal Types. Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2, POPL, Article 44 (Dec. 2017), 29 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. John Cartmell. 1986. Generalised algebraic theories and contextual categories. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 32 (1986), 209–243.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. James Chapman, Pierre-Évariste Dagand, Conor McBride, and Peter Morris. 2010. The gentle art of levitation. ACM Sigplan Notices 45, 9 (2010), 3–14. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Pierre Clairambault and Peter Dybjer. 2014. The biequivalence of locally cartesian closed categories and Martin-Löf type theories. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 24, 6 (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Jesper Cockx, Dominique Devriese, and Frank Piessens. 2014. Pattern Matching Without K. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Functional Programming (ICFP ’14) . ACM, New York, NY, USA, 257–268. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Cyril Cohen, Thierry Coquand, Simon Huber, and Anders Mörtberg. 2016. Cubical Type Theory: a constructive interpretation of the univalence axiom. CoRR abs/1611.02108 (2016). arXiv: 1611.02108 http://arxiv.org/abs/1611.02108Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Thierry Coquand, Simon Huber, and Anders Mörtberg. 2018. On Higher Inductive Types in Cubical Type Theory. LICS ’18: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM/IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (2018). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Peter Dybjer. 1996. Internal Type Theory. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, 120–134. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Peter Dybjer. 1997. Inductive Families. Formal Aspects of Computing 6 (1997), 440–465.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Peter Dybjer. 2000. A General Formulation of Simultaneous Inductive-Recursive Definitions in Type Theory. Journal of Symbolic Logic 65 (2000), 525–549.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Peter Dybjer and Hugo Moeneclaey. 2018. Finitary Higher Inductive Types in the Groupoid Model. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 336 (2018), 119 – 134.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Martin Hofmann. 1995a. Conservativity of Equality Reflection over Intensional Type Theory.. In TYPES 95. 153–164. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Martin Hofmann. 1995b. Extensional concepts in intensional type theory. University of Edinburgh, Department of Computer Science. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=HK3xtgAACAAJGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Ambrus Kaposi. 2017. Type theory in a type theory with quotient inductive types. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Nottingham.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Ambrus Kaposi and András Kovács. 2018. A Syntax for Higher Inductive-Inductive Types. In 3rd International Conference on Formal Structures for Computation and Deduction (FSCD 2018) (Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs)) , Hélène Kirchner (Ed.), Vol. 108. Schloss Dagstuhl–Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, Dagstuhl, Germany, 20:1–20:18.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine and Mike Shulman. 2017. Semantics of higher inductive types. arXiv: arXiv:1705.07088Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Peter Morris and Thorsten Altenkirch. 2009. Indexed Containers. In Twenty-Fourth IEEE Symposium in Logic in Computer Science (LICS 2009) . Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Fredrik Nordvall Forsberg. 2013. Inductive-inductive definitions. Ph.D. Dissertation. Swansea University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Nicolas Oury. 2005. Extensionality in the calculus of constructions. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 278–293. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Christine Paulin-Mohring. 1993. Inductive Definitions in the system Coq — Rules and Properties. In Typed Lambda Calculi and Applications, International Conference on Typed Lambda Calculi and Applications, TLCA ’93, Utrecht, The Netherlands, March 16-18, 1993, Proceedings (Lecture Notes in Computer Science) , Marc Bezem and Jan Friso Groote (Eds.), Vol. 664. Springer, 328–345. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. John C. Reynolds. 1983. Types, Abstraction and Parametric Polymorphism. In Information Processing 83, Proceedings of the IFIP 9th World Computer Congress, Paris, September 19-23, 1983 , R. E. A. Mason (Ed.). Elsevier Science Publishers B. V. (North-Holland), Amsterdam, 513–523.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Kristina Sojakova. 2015. Higher Inductive Types As Homotopy-Initial Algebras. In Proceedings of the 42Nd Annual ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL ’15) . ACM, New York, NY, USA, 31–42. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. The Univalent Foundations Program. 2013. Homotopy type theory: Univalent foundations of mathematics. Technical Report. Institute for Advanced Study.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Niels van der Weide. 2016. Higher Inductive Types. Ph.D. Dissertation. Radboud University, Nijmegen. Master’s thesis.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Théo Winterhalter, Matthieu Sozeau, and Nicolas Tabareau. 2018. Using reflection to eliminate reflection. In 24th International Conference on Types for Proofs and Programs, TYPES 2018 , José Espírito Santo and Luís Pinto (Eds.). University of Minho.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Constructing quotient inductive-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!