Skip to content

peterlefanulumsdaine/general-type-theories

master
Switch branches/tags
Code

Latest commit

 

Git stats

Files

Permalink
Failed to load latest commit information.
Type
Name
Latest commit message
Commit time
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

General type theories

A (formalised) general definition of type theories.

Contributors

  • Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine (lead author)
  • Andrej Bauer
  • Philip Haselwarter
  • Théo Winterhalter

Content

This repo contains a Coq formalisation of a general notion of dependent type theories, and the development of key metatheorems for this notion.

A human-readable presentation of the main notions can be found in Lumsdaine’s talk at HoTTEST Conference, 2020 slides, and an article presenting the work is in preparation.

Development

The formalisation is under active development.

Some parts are fairly complete, while others are very much work in progress.

None of the formalisation should be considered stable.

How to use this formalisation

  • Install the HoTT library according to its instructions
  • Invoke make from the base directory of this repository

Detailed overview

Note: the following overview is currently somewhat out of date.

Directory overview

  • Auxiliary -- mathematical generalities, not specifically about type theory
  • Syntax -- raw syntax
  • Typing -- judgements, flat rules, flat type theories, typing derivations
  • Presented -- well-presented rules, type theories
  • Metatheorem -- basic metatheorems about these type theories
  • Example -- examples of scope systems, type theories, etc.

Mathematical overview

We call the class of type theories we define Martin-Löf style. In this section we lay down the basic concepts but do not discuss how they are formalized. You will find here the naive mathematical decscription of the concepts we intend to formalize. For the purposes of formalization we may introduce additional intermediate concepts (but it is better if we do not have to, so eventually we should have a perfect match between the formalized notions and the intended mathematical ones).

Syntactic entities

There are two syntactic classes: terms and types. An expression can be one or the other but not both. (In particular this means we shall have Tarski-style universes.) We call these raw terms and types in order to emphasize that they are just syntactic entities which need not be well-formed.

The theory is dependent (types depend on terms) and has binding operators (such as ∏, Σ, λ). Therefore, we need to describe scopes of contexts and binding operators. Two possibilities for scopes are de Bruijn indices and named variables, but these are not the only ones. Thus we define a general abstract notion of scope systems, which we then use to express the structure of contexts and binding operators.

The raw syntax is generated from a raw signature (we use the qualifier "raw" to remind ourselves that such a signature describes only the raw syntax, i.e., the syntactic classes and the binding structure). The raw signature lists a number of term and type constructors, together with their arities. An arity is a higher-order one, i.e., it tells us not only how many arguments the constructor expects, but also how it binds variables.

Judgments

There are the following judgment forms:

  1. Γ context – "Γ is a context"
  2. Γ ⊢ A type – "A is type in context Γ"
  3. Γ ⊢ t : A – "t is a term of type A in context Γ"
  4. Γ ⊢ A ≡ B – "type A and B are equal in context Γ"
  5. Γ ⊢ s ≡ t : A – "terms s and t of type A are equal in context Γ"

Each judgment has a boundary, which consists of several structurally smaller judgments (by "structurally smaller" we mean that the syntactic entities appearing in the boundary are subentities of the judgment). We say that a boundary is well-formed when the judgments in its boundary are derivable. The boundaries are as follows:

  1. the boundary of Γ context is empty
  2. the boundary of Γ ⊢ A type is Γ context
  3. the boundary of Γ ⊢ t : A is Γ ⊢ A type
  4. the boundary of Γ ⊢ A ≡ B is Γ context, Γ ⊢ A type, and Γ ⊢ B type
  5. the boundary of Γ ⊢ s ≡ t : A is Γ context, Γ ⊢ A type, Γ ⊢ s : A, and Γ ⊢ s : A

Rules

Given a raw signature Σ, we may form (inference) rules. Each inference rule consists of two parts:

  • the raw rule specifying a family of premises and a conclusion
  • evidence that the raw rule is well-formed

The precise structure of a raw rule is as follows:

  • A raw rule refers to a family meta-variables, each of which is either a type meta-variable or a term meta-variable.
  • The premises and the conclusion are judgments over Σ that may refer to the meta-variables.

The evidence that a raw rule is well-formed consists of, for each premise and the conclusion, a derivations witnessing the fact that the boundaries are well-formed, under the hypotheses that the meta-variables signify well-formed terms and types.

Structural rules

There are rules which we insist on having, called the structural rules. These are:

  • rules governing formation of contexts
  • variable rules
  • reflexivity, symmetry and transitivity of equality
  • equality is a congruence with respect to all type and term formers

Rule instances

Given a rule, we may form a rule instance by replacing the meta-variables appearing in it with suitable instances. Of course, when doing so, we need to provide evidence that the instances are well-formed typed and terms.

Derivations

A general type theory T is given by a scope σ, a signature Σ over σ, and a family of inference rules over Σ.

A derivation of a judgment J from a family of rules R hypotheses H is an inductively generated tree whose conclusion is J, the leaves are the elements of H, and the nodes are rule instances from R.

The interdependence of derivations and rules

While a scope σ and a raw signature Σ may be given without many complications, there is considerable interdependence between inference rules because giving the evidence that a rule is well-formed requires one to provide derivations, but to know what a derivation is, we need to be given inference rules.

Coding conventions

We observe the following naming conventions.

Use singular

All file names, section names, and identifiers which refer to a structure are in the singular case. Thus it is Theory.v not Theories.v. An exceptions is XYZExamples.

No abbreviations

We do not abbreviate any words without a written permission of all project members.

Upper case CamelCase for files and sections

Names of files and sections should be written in the CamelCase style: each word is capitalized, there are no underscores.

Lower case with underscores for identifiers

All identifier names are in all lower letters, with underscores between words. Thus it is judgment_boundary and not JudgmentBdry or Judgment_Boundary.

Make definitions Local

In a file, use Local Definition rather than just Definition so that when we refer to entities across files, we can tell which file we are referring to. For example, in Family.v we place

Local Definition fmap := ...

and then in some other file we refer to it with Family.fmap.

Exception to the Local rule: an identifiers such as Family.family can be defined as non-local, provided that:

  • writing the fully qualified name looks redundant, e.g., Family.family and
  • it is highly unlikely that another file will contain the same identifier.

The following is not a valid reason for removing Local: "But we use it very often."

Do not replicate the module name in the identifier

In a module Foo, do not define a Local identifier foo_xyz, instead define just xyz. When we refer to xyz from outside the module it will look right Foo.xyz, and you can live with the short name withing the module Foo.

Note that when xyz is declared global, e.g., it is the field name of a globally defined Record, then it is ok to name it foo_xyz. (Example: field name Family.family_index.)

Boilerplate

Many key constructions have a lot of related boilerplate — typically some of the following:

  • access functions
  • coercion declarations
  • equality lemmas (how to conveniently prove two widgets are equal; or, better, an equivalence between the equality type on widgets and some tractable type)
  • functoriality lemmas (widgets are functorial in maps of some of their arguments)
  • category structure (widgets form a category, or a displayed category over some of their arguments

Such boilerplate should typically be given straight after the definition of widgets, in roughly the above order, except when there are specific reasons to defer it.

See also “categories and functoriality” below.

Categories and functoriality

Many constructions involved form categories, and/or are functorial/natural in some of their arguments, and keeping track of this systematically is crucial.

Functoriality of a construction widget should be given as a lemma widget_fmap, or if widget is the core notion of a modula Widget, as a local lemma fmap, exported as Widget.fmap.

If widgets are thought of as just forming a set/type, with no further category structure, then there should be further lemmas Widget.fmap_idmap, Widget.fmap_compose giving the functoriality laws up to equality, and these should all directly follow the definition of widgets.

When widgets form a category — or, more typically, a fibration or displayed category over some previously-defined category (e.g. families form a fibration over sets/types) — then their (displayed) maps and category structure should directly follow their definition, and their fmap lemma (i.e. the demonstration that the displayed category is a fibration) should follow these.

Maps of widgets should be defined as Widget.map, or Widget.map_over for displayed maps over some map(s) of the parameters, composition as Widget.compose, and so on.

Kleisli-like categories

In some case, the main notion of map for some object is something like a Kleisli map: e.g. for type theories, a “map of type theories” may take a symbol of the source theory not just to an atomic symbol but more generally to any suitably-derivable term of the target theory.

However, setting up the category of such maps usually requires first developing the corresponding simple maps, e.g. where each symbol of the source theory is sent just to a suitable symbol of the target theory.

In this case, we distinguish the simple structure as e.g. Widget.simple_map, Widget.simple_compose, and so on; or when we wish to think of the simple notion as primary, we distinguish the Kleisli notions as Widget.kleisli_map, etc.

Layout

  • all code should be kept to line lengths ≤80 chars

  • running text in comments should be either hard-wrapped to length ≤80 chars, or non-wrapped, with blank lines to separate paragraphs in either case. (Please try not to hard-wrap text to longer line lengths; that becomes nasty to read in windows with shorter line lengths.)

  • indent in steps of 2 spaces

  • symbols like :, := that are high in the parse-tree of a declaration should go at the beginning of lines for quick visibility, not at the end of lines, where they get lost; so

    Definition idfun {X : Type} : X -> X := fun x => x.

  • in short declarations they can be mid-line, e.g.

    Definition idfun {X : Type} : X -> X := fun x => x.

  • in tactic proofs, when a tactic spawns multiple subgoals, always use bullets or some other form of focusing to separate the proofs of the subgoals. So never write

    destruct x as [ y | z ].
    tactic1.
    tactic2.
    tactic3.
    

    Qed.

but instead something like (A):

  destruct x as [ y | z ].
  - tactic1.
  	tactic2.
  - tactic3.
Qed.

or (B)

  destruct x as [ y | z ].
  2: { tactic3. }
  tactic1.
  tactic2.
Qed.
  • focusing with bullets as in (A) is usually better if both/most subproofs are long; brackets as in (B) are good when all subproofs except one are short (~one-liners), since they avoid extra indentation in this case. (Most often relevant when composing a long chain of equalities or morphisms.)

About

A (formalised) general definition of type theories

Resources

Stars

Watchers

Forks

Packages

No packages published

Contributors 4

  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

Languages