Download presentation

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Published byLester Joseph Modified about 1 year ago

1
Weyl’s predicative math in type theory Zhaohui Luo Dept of Computer Science Royal Holloway, Univ of London (Joint work with Robin Adams)

2
April Formalisation of mathematics with different logical foundations in a type-theoretic framework

3
April This talk Maths based on different logical foundations Weyl’s predicative mathematics Type-theoretic framework Example: logic-enriched TT with classical logic Predicativity Impredicative and predicative notions of set Formalisations Real number system, predicatively and impredicatively

4
April I. Applications of TT to formalisation of maths Formalisation in TT-based proof assistants Examples in Coq: Fundamental Theorem of Algebra Four-colour Theorem Maths with different logical foundations Variety of maths, all legacies (mathematical “pluralism”) Adequacy in formalisation? Uniform framework? Type theory and associated technology Not just for constructive math Also for classical math and other maths

5
April Maths with different logical foundations: examples Consider the “combinations” of the following and their “negations”: (C)Classical logic (I) Impredicative definitions We would have (CI) Ordinary (classical, impredicative) math Classical set theory/simple type theory, HOL/Isabelle (C°I°)Predicative constructive math Martin-Löf’s TT, ALF/Agda/NuPRL (C°I)Impredicative constructive math Constructions/CID/ECC/UTT, Coq/Lego/Plastic (CI°)Predicative classical math Weyl, Feferman, Simpson, … Uniform foundational framework for formalisation?

6
April Weyl’s predicative mathematics H. Weyl. The Continuum. (Das Kontinuum.) Historical development (paradox etc.) The notion of category Predicative development of the real number system Weyl/Feferman/Simpson’s work on predicativity Predicativity E.g., { x | φ(x) } with φ being “arithmetical” (without quantification over sets) Feferman’s development on “predicativism” Simpson’s work on reverse mathematics

7
April II. Logic-enriched type theories in LFs Logic-enriched type theory Aczel & Gambino (LTT in the intuitionistic setting) [AG02,06] c.f. separation of logical propositions and data types in ECC/UTT [Luo90,94] Type-theoretic framework for mathematical “pluralism” Logic-enriched TTs in a logical framework: Logic Types \ / Logical Framework

8
April An example: T T = LF + Classical FOL + Ind types/universes Classical Ind types FOL + universes \/ LF

9
April Classical FOL (specified in a logical framework) Propositions (note: LF should be “extended” with Prop and Prf) Prop kind Prf(P) kind [P : Prop] Logical operators P Q : Prop [P : Prop, Q : Prop] [A,P] : Prop [A : Type, P[x:A] : Prop] ¬P : Prop [P : Prop] DN[P,p] : Prf(P) [P:Prop, p:Prf(¬¬P)]

10
April Types Inductive types/families e.g. Nats, Trees, … (as in TTs such as UTT) Induction Rule: elimination over propositions. Example: the natural numbers N : Type, 0 : N, succ[n] : N [n : N] Elimination over types: Elim T [C,c,f,n] : C[n], for C[n] : Type [n : N] Plus computational rules for Elim T : eg, Elim T [C,c,f,succ(n)] = f[n,Elim T [C,c,f,n]] Induction over propositions: Elim P [P,c,f,n] : P[n], for P[n] : Prop [n : N]

11
April Relative consistency Theorem (relative consistency of T ) T is logically consistent w.r.t. ZF.

12
April III. Formalisation Consider Classical logic T \ / LF with T = Inductive types + Impredicative sets (I) Predicative sets (I°)

13
April Impredicative notion of set Typed sets, impredicatively: Set[A:Type] : Type set[A:Type,P[x:A]:Prop] : Set[A] in[A:Type,a:A,S:Set[A]] : Prop in[A,a,set[A,P]] = P[a] : Prop Every set has a “base type” (or “category”) Sets are given by characteristic propositional functions { x : A | P(x) } – set(A,P) s S – in(A,s,S) One can formulate powersets as …

14
April Predicative notion of set Type universe and propositional universe type : Type and T[a:type] : Type (universe of “small types”) prop : Prop and V[p:prop] : Prop (universe of “small propositions”) [a:type,p[x:T[a]]:prop] : prop and V[ [a,p]] = [T[a],V◦p] : Prop Predicative notion of set Set[A:Type] : Type set[A:Type,p[x:A]:prop] : Set[A] in[A:Type,x:A,S:Set[A]] : prop in[A,x,set[A,p]] = p[x] : prop

15
April Formalisation in Plastic Plastic (Callaghan [CL01]) Plastic: proof assistant, implementing a logical framework Extending Plastic with “Prop” etc. Formalisation Weyl’s predicative development Nats, Integers, Rationals, and Dedekind cuts. Completion and LUB theorems for real numbers. Other features Types as informal “categories” Typed sets Setoids Comparison between predicative and impredicative developments

Similar presentations

© 2016 SlidePlayer.com Inc.

All rights reserved.

Ads by Google