[Agda] Parametricity is inconsistent with classical logic
Peter Hancock
hancock at spamcop.net
Thu May 10 11:59:55 CEST 2012
>>>> ((x : X) → ¬ ¬ F x) → ¬ ¬ ((x : X) → F x)
I just wanted to say that DNS in this form resembles the
extensionality axiom in Voevodsky's form.
((x : X)-> isContr(F x)) -> isContr((x : X)-> F x)
A double negation seems to be a crude way of turning an
inhabited set into a singleton.
Or is that nonsense? It looks like an extensionality axiom.
Hank
More information about the Agda
mailing list