[Coq-Club] [Agda] Re: [HoTT] newbie questions about homotopy theory & advantage of UF/Coq

[Frédéric Blanqui]

Hi.

Sorry but I don't really understand Andrej and Mathieu's last mails. In 
size-based termination, there is no ordinal in the type system itself. 
Ordinals are just used in the meta-theory to justify that, indeed, every 
well typed term terminates. In fact, ordinals were already used before 
in the meta-theory of CIC (see Altenkirch and Werner's PhDs) to justify 
the fact that functions defined by structural induction indeed 
terminates. Size-based termination simply extends the syntax of CIC by 
making explicit something that was implicit in the interpretation of 
types as Girard's reducibility candidates. The nice thing is that it 
brings extra power to prove the termination of functions because, in 
contrast to the notion of "structurally smaller", size is invariant by 
reduction.

Best regards,

Frédéric.

Le 09/01/2014 00:25, Matthieu Sozeau a écrit :
> I agree with you Andrej, and the (well founded) transitive closure of 
> the subterm relation can easily be defined for computational inductive 
> families (all inductive types if you remove prop), avoiding 
> the computation of ordinals. That's precisely the "semantic" 
> (maybe "evidence-based"?) explanation that C. Paulin used in her 
> habilitation thesis to justify recursive definitions and the most 
> general one for users (it does not even need to be attached to an 
> inductive type). Equations can derive this subterm relation 
> automatically for (non-mutual, non-nested) inductive families, and 
> prove its wellfoundedness. Extending this to the other cases is a 
> matter of thinking and engineering. The Below predicate of Epigram 
> gives you similar access to every subterm you can recurse on 
> "logically". The only culprit is reduction behavior/efficiency using 
> this machinery, but that should be optimizable.
>
> Best,
> -- Matthieu
>
> Le mercredi 8 janvier 2014, Andrej Bauer a écrit :
>
>     I would just like to point out that ordinals are an inherently
>     classical notion. The correct constructive and computationally
>     meaningful replacement is that of a well-founded relation, i.e., a
>     relation < on a set X satisfying, for all properties P,
>
>      (forall y, ((forall x < y, P x) -> P y)) -> forall z, P z.
>
>     This is all well known, and of course you can recognize the
>     recursor/eliminator in the above formula. So if we are to take
>     computation seriously, we ought to think about inductive definitions
>     which are justified by a more general notion of well foundedness, not
>     just ordinals. The ordinals are bound to go wrong when we push them a
>     little bit.
>
>     Also, the HoTT experience has thought us (at least me) the value of
>     semantic notions over syntactic ones. I am referring to HoTT hProp vs.
>     CiC Prop. The former delineates the concept of "proposition" with a
>     semantic condition, while the latter does it formalistically. It would
>     seem sensible to me to go the same route with inductive definitions,
>     namely, rely on semantic justifications rather than syntactic ones. [I
>     may be misusing the words "semantic" and "syntactic" here, but I
>     cannot think of better ones.]
>
>     With kind regards,
>
>     Andrej
>
>     --
>     You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>     Groups "Homotopy Type Theory" group.
>     To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
>     send an email to HomotopyTypeTheory+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com
>     <javascript:;>.
>     For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>
> -- 
> -- Matthieu
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
> Groups "Homotopy Type Theory" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
> an email to HomotopyTypeTheory+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chalmers.se/pipermail/agda/attachments/20140109/3ee85322/attachment.html