skip to main content
research-article
Open Access

Higher inductive types in cubical computational type theory

Published:02 January 2019Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Homotopy type theory proposes higher inductive types (HITs) as a means of defining and reasoning about inductively-generated objects with higher-dimensional structure. As with the univalence axiom, however, homotopy type theory does not specify the computational behavior of HITs. Computational interpretations have now been provided for univalence and specific HITs by way of cubical type theories, which use a judgmental infrastructure of dimension variables. We extend the cartesian cubical computational type theory introduced by Angiuli et al. with a schema for indexed cubical inductive types (CITs), an adaptation of higher inductive types to the cubical setting. In doing so, we isolate the canonical values of a cubical inductive type and prove a canonicity theorem with respect to these values.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

a1-cavallo.webm

References

  1. Stuart F. Allen, Mark Bickford, Robert L. Constable, Richard Eaton, Christoph Kreitz, Lori Lorigo, and E. Moran. 2006. Innovations in computational type theory using Nuprl. J. Applied Logic 4, 4 (2006), 428–469.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Thorsten Altenkirch and Peter Morris. 2009. Indexed Containers. In Proceedings of the 24th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, LICS 2009, 11-14 August 2009, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 277–285. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Carlo Angiuli, Guillaume Brunerie, Thierry Coquand, Kuen-Bang Hou (Favonia), Robert Harper, and Daniel R. Licata. 2017a. Cartesian Cubical Type Theory. (Dec. 2017). https://github.com/dlicata335/cart- cube .Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Carlo Angiuli, Robert Harper, and Todd Wilson. 2017b. Computational higher-dimensional type theory. In Proceedings of the 44th ACM SIGPLAN Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, POPL 2017, Paris, France, January 18-20, 2017. 680–693. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Carlo Angiuli, Kuen-Bang Hou (Favonia), and Robert Harper. 2017c. Computational higher type theory III: Univalent universes and exact equality. (Dec. 2017). arXiv:1712.01800 .Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Carlo Angiuli, Kuen-Bang Hou (Favonia), and Robert Harper. 2018. Cartesian Cubical Computational Type Theory: Constructive Reasoning with Paths and Equalities. In 27th EACSL Annual Conference on Computer Science Logic, CSL 2018, September 4-7, 2018, Birmingham, United Kingdom.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Steve Awodey, Nicola Gambino, and Kristina Sojakova. 2012. Inductive Types in Homotopy Type Theory. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, LICS 2012, Dubrovnik, Croatia, June 25-28, 2012. 95–104. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Henning Basold, Herman Geuvers, and Niels van der Weide. 2017. Higher Inductive Types in Programming. J. UCS 23, 1 (2017), 63–88.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Marc Bezem, Thierry Coquand, and Simon Huber. 2013. A Model of Type Theory in Cubical Sets. In 19th International Conference on Types for Proofs and Programs, TYPES 2013, April 22-26, 2013, Toulouse, France. 107–128.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Evan Cavallo and Robert Harper. 2018. Computational higher type theory IV: Inductive types. (Jan. 2018). arXiv:1801.01568 .Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Cyril Cohen, Thierry Coquand, Simon Huber, and Anders Mörtberg. 2015. Cubical Type Theory: A Constructive Interpretation of the Univalence Axiom. In 21st International Conference on Types for Proofs and Programs, TYPES 2015, May 18-21, 2015, Tallinn, Estonia. 5:1–5:34.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Thierry Coquand, Simon Huber, and Anders Mörtberg. 2018. On Higher Inductive Types in Cubical Type Theory. In 33nd Annual ACM/IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, LICS 2018, Oxford, UK, July 9-12, 2018. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Thierry Coquand and Christine Paulin. 1988. Inductively defined types. In COLOG-88, International Conference on Computer Logic, Tallinn, USSR, December 1988, Proceedings. 50–66. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Peter Dybjer. 1994. Inductive Families. Formal Aspects of Computing 6, 4 (1994), 440–465.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Peter Dybjer and Hugo Moeneclaey. 2017. Finitary Higher Inductive Types in the Groupoid Model. In Mathematical Foundations of Programming Semantics, 33rd International Conference, Ljubljana, Slovenia.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Martin Hofmann and Thomas Streicher. 1998. The groupoid interpretation of type theory. In Twenty-five years of constructive type theory (Venice, 1995). Oxford Logic Guides, Vol. 36. Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 83–111.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Simon Huber. 2016. Cubical Interpretations of Type Theory. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Gothenburg.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Ambrus Kaposi and András Kovács. 2018. A syntax for higher inductive-inductive types. In 3nd International Conference on Formal Structures for Computation and Deduction, FSCD 2018, July 9-12, 2018, Oxford, UK.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Nicolai Kraus. 2016. Constructions with Non-Recursive Higher Inductive Types. In Proceedings of the 31st Annual ACM/IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, LICS ’16, New York, NY, USA, July 5-8, 2016. 595–604. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine. 2011. Model Structures from Higher Inductive Types. (2011). Unpublished note. http: //peterlefanulumsdaine.com/research/Lumsdaine- Model- strux- from- HITs.pdf .Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine and Michael Shulman. 2017. Semantics of higher inductive types. (May 2017). arXiv:1705.07088 .Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. 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. North-Holland, 73–118.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Per Martin-Löf. 1982. Constructive Mathematics and Computer Programming. In Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, L.J. Cohen, J. Łoś, H. Pfeiffer, and K.-P. Podewski (Eds.), Vol. VI. 153–175.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Egbert Rijke. 2017. The join construction. (Jan. 2017). arXiv:1701.07538 .Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. 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 2015, Mumbai, India, January 15-17, 2015. 31–42. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Andrew Swan. 2014. An Algebraic Weak Factorisation System on 01-Substitution Sets: A Constructive Proof. (Sept. 2014). arXiv:1409.1829 .Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Andrew Swan. 2018a. Identity Types in Algebraic Model Structures and Cubical Sets. (Aug. 2018). arXiv:1808.00915 .Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Andrew Swan. 2018b. Separating Path and Identity Types in Presheaf Models of Univalent Type Theory. (Aug. 2018). arXiv:1808.00920 .Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. The RedPRL Development Team. 2018a. RedPRL – the People’s Refinement Logic. (2018). http://www.redprl.org/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. The RedPRL Development Team. 2018b. redtt. (2018). https://github.com/RedPRL/redttGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. The Univalent Foundations Program. 2013. Homotopy Type Theory: Univalent Foundations of Mathematics. https: //homotopytypetheory.org/book , Institute for Advanced Study.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Floris van Doorn. 2016. Constructing the propositional truncation using non-recursive HITs. In Proceedings of the 5th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Certified Programs and Proofs, Saint Petersburg, FL, USA, January 20-22, 2016. 122–129. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Vladimir Voevodsky. 2010. The equivalence axiom and univalent models of type theory. (2010). http://www.math.ias.edu/ vladimir/files/CMU_talk.pdf Notes from a talk at Carnegie Mellon University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Higher inductive types in cubical computational type theory

      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!