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

Definitional proof-irrelevance without K

Published:02 January 2019Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Definitional equality—or conversion—for a type theory with a decidable type checking is the simplest tool to prove that two objects are the same, letting the system decide just using computation. Therefore, the more things are equal by conversion, the simpler it is to use a language based on type theory. Proof-irrelevance, stating that any two proofs of the same proposition are equal, is a possible way to extend conversion to make a type theory more powerful. However, this new power comes at a price if we integrate it naively, either by making type checking undecidable or by realizing new axioms—such as uniqueness of identity proofs (UIP)—that are incompatible with other extensions, such as univalence. In this paper, taking inspiration from homotopy type theory, we propose a general way to extend a type theory with definitional proof irrelevance, in a way that keeps type checking decidable and is compatible with univalence. We provide a new criterion to decide whether a proposition can be eliminated over a type (correcting and improving the so-called singleton elimination of Coq) by using techniques coming from recent development on dependent pattern matching without UIP. We show the generality of our approach by providing implementations for both Coq and Agda, both of which are planned to be integrated in future versions of those proof assistants.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

a3-tabareau.webm

References

  1. Andreas Abel, Joakim Öhman, and Andrea Vezzosi. 2018. Decidability of Conversion for Type Theory in Type Theory. Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2, POPL, Article 23 (Jan. 2018), 29 pages. DOI: Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Andreas Abel and Gabriel Scherer. 2012. On Irrelevance and Algorithmic Equality in Predicative Type Theory. Logical Methods in Computer Science 8, 1 (03 2012). DOI:Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. T. Altenkirch. 1999. Extensional equality in intensional type theory. In Proceedings. 14th Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (Cat. No. PR00158). 412–420. DOI: Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Thorsten Altenkirch, Paolo Capriotti, and Nicolai Kraus. 2016. Extending Homotopy Type Theory with Strict Equality. In CSL.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Steven Awodey and Andrej Bauer. 2004. Propositions As {Types}. J. Log. and Comput. 14, 4 (Aug. 2004), 447–471. DOI: Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Simon Boulier, Pierre-Marie Pédrot, and Nicolas Tabareau. 2017. The Next 700 Syntactical Models of Type Theory. In Proceedings of Certified Programs and Proofs. ACM, 182–194. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Edwin Brady, Conor McBride, and James McKinna. 2004. Inductive Families Need Not Store Their Indices. In Types for Proofs and Programs, Stefano Berardi, Mario Coppo, and Ferruccio Damiani (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 115–129.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Paolo Capriotti. 2017. Models of type theory with strict equality. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Nottingham.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Jesper Cockx and Andreas Abel. 2018. Elaborating Dependent (Co)pattern matching. In Proceedings of the 23th ACM SIG-PLAN Conference on Functional Programming (ICFP 2018). ACM Press, St. Louis, Missouri, United States. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Jesper Cockx and Dominique Devriese. 2018. Proof-relevant unification: Dependent pattern matching with only the axioms of your type theory. Journal of Functional Programming 28 (2018), e12. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Jesper Cockx, Dominique Devriese, and Frank Piessens. 2014. Pattern matching without K. In ACM SIGPLAN Notices, Vol. 49. ACM, 257–268. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Thierry Coquand. 2016. Universe of Bishop sets. (2016). www.cse.chalmers.se/~coquand/bishop.pdf .Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Peter Dybjer. 1996. Internal type theory. In Types for Proofs and Programs, Stefano Berardi and Mario Coppo (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 120–134. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Martin Hofmann. 1995. Conservativity of equality reflection over intensional type theory. In International Workshop on Types for Proofs and Programs. Springer, 153–164. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. P. Letouzey. 2004. Programmation fonctionnelle certifiée – L’extraction de programmes dans l’assistant Coq. Ph.D. Dissertation. Université Paris-Sud.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Cyprien Mangin and Matthieu Sozeau. 2018. Equations Reloaded. (2018). http://mattam82.github.io/Coq-Equations/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Per Martin-Löf. 1975. An Intuitionistic Theory of Types: Predicative Part. In Logic Colloquium ’73, H.E. Rose and J.C. Shepherdson (Eds.). Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, Vol. 80. Elsevier, 73 – 118. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Frank Pfenning. 2001. Intensionality, Extensionality, and Proof Irrelevance in Modal Type Theory. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS ’01). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, 221–. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=871816.871845 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Aaron Stump. 2018. From realizability to induction via dependent intersection. Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 169, 7 (2018), 637–655. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. The Univalent Foundations Program. 2013. Homotopy Type Theory: Univalent Foundations of Mathematics. Institute for Advanced Study.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Vladimir Voevodsky. 2011. Resising Rules - their use and semantic justification. www.math.ias.edu/~vladimir/Site3/ Univalent_Foundations_files/2011_Bergen.pdf . (2011).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Vladimir Voevodsky. 2013. A simple type system with two identity types. (2013). https://ncatlab.org/homotopytypetheory/ files/HTS.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Benjamin Werner. 2008. On the Strength of Proof-Irrelevant Type Theories. 4 (09 2008), 1–20.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Definitional proof-irrelevance without K

    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!