Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-mggfc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-16T18:49:50.087Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

From type theory to setoids and back

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2023

Erik Palmgren Open the ORCID record for Erik Palmgren [Opens in a new window]
Erik Palmgren*
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
*
Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A model of Martin-Löf extensional type theory with universes is formalized in Agda, an interactive proof system based on Martin-Löf intensional type theory. This may be understood, we claim, as a solution to the old problem of modeling the full extensional theory in the intensional theory. Types are interpreted as setoids, and the model is therefore a setoid model.We solve the problem of interpreting type universes by utilizing Aczel’s type of iterative sets and show how it can be made into a setoid of small setoids containing the necessary setoid constructions. In addition, we interpret the bracket types of Awodey and Bauer. Further quotient types should be interpretable.

Keywords

Martin-Löf type theoryextensionalityconstructive set theorysetoids
Type
Paper
Information
Mathematical Structures in Computer Science , Volume 32 , Issue 10 , November 2022 , pp. 1283 - 1312
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Estate of Erik Palmgren, 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aczel, P. (1977). The strength of Martin-löf’s intuitionistic type theory with one universe. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Mathematical Logic (Oulu, 1974), vol. 2 of Reports, Department of Philosophy. University of Helsinki, 1–32.Google Scholar
Aczel, P. (1978). The type theoretic interpretation of constructive set theory. In Logic Colloquium ’77 (Proc. Conf., Wrocław, 1977), vol. 96 of Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics North-Holland, 55–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aczel, P. (1982). The type theoretic interpretation of constructive set theory: choice principles. In The L. E. J. Brouwer Centenary Symposium (Noordwijkerhout, 1981), vol. 110 of Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, North-Holland, 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aczel, P. (1999). On relating type theories and set theories. In Types for Proofs and Programs (Irsee, 1998), vol. 1657 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aczel, P. and Rathjen, M. (2000/2001). Notes on constructive set theory. Technical Report 40, Institut Mittag-Leffler, The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Awodey, S. and Bauer, A. (2004). Propositions as [types]. Journal of Logic and Computation 14 (4) 447–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barras, B. (2010). Sets in Coq, Coq in sets. Journal of Formalized Reasoning 3 (1) 29–48.Google Scholar
Beeson, M. J. (1985). Foundations of Constructive Mathematics. Metamathematical Studies, vol. 6. Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dybjer, P. (2000). A general formulation of simultaneous inductive-recursive definitions in type theory. Journal of Symbolic Logic 65 (2) 525–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofmann, M. (1997). Extensional Constructs in Intensional Type Theory . CPHC/BCS Distinguished Dissertations. Springer-Verlag London, Ltd.Google Scholar
Maietti, M. E. (2005). Modular correspondence between dependent type theories and categories including pretopoi and topoi. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 15 (6) 1089–1149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maietti, M. E. (2009). A minimalist two-level foundation for constructive mathematics. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 160 (3) 319–354.Google Scholar
Maietti, M. E. and Rosolini, G. (2012). Elementary quotient completion. Theory and Applications of Categories 27 Paper No. 17, 463.Google Scholar
[Maietti and Rosolini, 2013] Maietti, M. E. and Rosolini, G. (2013). Quotient completion for the foundation of constructive mathematics. Logica Universalis 7 (3) 371–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maietti, M. E. and Sambin, G. (2005). Toward a minimalist foundation for constructive mathematics. In From Sets and Types to Topology and Analysis, vol. 48 of Oxford Logic Guides. Oxford University Press, 91–114.Google Scholar
Martin-Löf, P. (1982). Constructive mathematics and computer programming. In Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, VI (Hannover, 1979), vol. 104 of Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics. North-Holland, 153–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin-Löf, P. (1984). Intuitionistic Type Theory. Notes by Giovanni Sambin of a Series of Lectures Given in Padua, June 1980. Bibliopolis, 1984.Google Scholar
Nordström, B., Petersson, K. and Smith, J. M. (1990). Programming in Martin-Löf’s Type Theory. An Introduction, vol. 7 of International Series of Monographs on Computer Science. The Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Palmgren, E. (1998). On universes in type theory. In Twenty-Five Years of Constructive Type Theory (Venice, 1995), vol. 36 of Oxford Logic Guides, 191–204. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmgren, E. (2005). Bishop’s Set Theory. Slides from TYPES Summer School 2005, Gothenburg.Google Scholar
Palmgren, E. (2012). Proof-relevance of families of setoids and identity in type theory. Archive for Mathematical Logic 51 (1–2) 35–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmgren, E. (2018a). A constructive examination of a Russell-style ramified type theory. Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 24 (1) 90–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmgren, E. (2018b). On equality of objects in categories in constructive type theory. In 23rd International Conference on Types for Proofs and Programs, vol. 104 of LIPIcs. Leibniz Int. Proc. Inform., pages Art. No. 7, 7. Schloss Dagstuhl. Leibniz-Zent. Inform.Google Scholar
Palmgren, E. and Wilander, O. (2014). Constructing categories and setoids of setoids in type theory. Logical Methods in Computer Science 10 (3) 3:25, 14.Google Scholar
The Univalent Foundations Program (2013). Homotopy Type Theory—Univalent Foundations of Mathematics . The Univalent Foundations Program, Princeton, NJ; Institute for Advanced Study (IAS).Google Scholar
Ranta, A. (1995). Type-theoretical Grammar. Indices. The Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rathjen, M. (2000). The strength of Martin-Löf type theory with a superuniverse. I. Archive for Mathematical Logic 39 (1) 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rathjen, M. (2001). The strength of Martin-Löf type theory with a superuniverse. II. Archive for Mathematical Logic 40 (3) 207–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rathjen, M., Griffor, E. R. and Palmgren, E. (1998). Inaccessibility in constructive set theory and type theory. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 94 (1–3) 181–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rathjen, M. and Tupailo, S. (2006). Characterizing the interpretation of set theory in Martin-Löf type theory. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 141 (3) 442–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salvesen, A. (1986). A set-theoretic interpretation of Martin-Löf’s type theory. Master’s thesis, Oslo University, 1986.Google Scholar
Smith, J. (1984). An interpretation of Martin-Löf’s type theory in a type-free theory of propositions. Journal of Symbolic Logic 49 (3) 730–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werner, B. (1997). Sets in types, types in sets. In Theoretical Aspects of Computer Software (Sendai, 1997), vol. 1281 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, 530–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilander, O. (2010). Setoids and universes. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 20 (4) 563–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilander, O. (2012). Constructing a small category of setoids. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 22 103–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar