The tag has no wiki summary.

learn more… | top users | synonyms

38
votes
6answers
4k views

Learning Lambda Calculus

What are some good online/free resources (tutorials, guides, exercises, and the like) for learning Lambda Calculus? Specifically, I am interested in the following areas: Untyped lambda calculus ...
14
votes
3answers
555 views

What good is infinity?

I am becoming increasingly convinced that Wildberger's views are, if a little bizarre, at least not hopelessly inconsistent. When I was reading the comments in the video following (MF17), somebody ...
11
votes
2answers
908 views

Classic type theory textbooks

There are many classic textbooks in set and category theory (as possible foundations of mathematics), among many others Jech's, Kunen's, and Awodey's. Are there comparable classic textbooks in ...
11
votes
3answers
358 views

Why is it worth spending time on type theory?

Looking around there are three candidates for "foundations of mathematics": set theory category theory type theory There is a seminal paper relating these three topics: From Sets to Types to ...
11
votes
1answer
609 views

If $f(x)=g(x)$ for all $x:A$, why is it not true that $\lambda x{.}f(x)=\lambda x{.}g(x)$?

There's something about lambda calculus that keeps me puzzled. Suppose we have $x:A\vdash f(x):P(x)$ and $x:A\vdash g(x):P(x)$ for some dependent type $P$ over a type $A$. Then it is not necessarily ...
11
votes
1answer
270 views

Hao Wang's $\mathfrak S$ system/$\Sigma$ system: a “transfinite type” theory that avoids the Goedel's theorems.

Long ago, while I was reading a book ($*$) about the various way to build set theories (Zermelo-Freankel, Von Neumann–Bernays–Gödel, and type theories), I read about a variant of type theory with ...
9
votes
0answers
149 views

Reference on standard types

This question is about what I presume is a basic construction in type theory. The finite types are defined as follows: 0 is a finite type; if $\sigma, \tau$ are finite types, then so is ...
8
votes
1answer
238 views

Looking for an approach to mathematical notation wherein the universe is divided into disjoint worlds.

Is there a rigorous approach to mathematical notation wherein the "universe" is divided into disjoint "worlds," and the meaning of notation is world-dependent? This would solve a few pesky problems. ...
7
votes
1answer
370 views

Intuitionistic Banach-Tarski Paradox

While the Banach-Tarski paradox is a counter-intuitive result which requires the Axiom of Choice, leading some people to argue specifically against Choice, and others to argue for constructive ...
7
votes
3answers
144 views

How or why does intutionistic logic proof negations from within the theory, constructively?

I'm having a little of a cognitive dissonance why, in intuitionistic logic, it's possible to show stentences like $(\neg A \land \neg B) \implies \neg(A\lor B).$ In plain text: If 'A isn't true' as ...
7
votes
0answers
176 views

Type theory as foundations

Does anyone know any good references that describe type theoretical foundations of mathematics? I've read some books e.g. Winskel's The Formal Semantics of Programming Languages and Pierce's Types and ...
6
votes
1answer
180 views

Confusion about Homotopy Type Theory terminology

I've picked up the Homotopy Type Theory book for leisure. I'm comfortable with strongly typed languages and familiar with dependently typed languages and I enjoy topology, so I thought that the HoTT ...
6
votes
1answer
407 views

Relationship between propositional logic, first-order logic, second-order logic higher-order logic, and type theory

I understand there is propositional logic, first-order logic, second-order logic higher-order logic, and type theory, where the latter logics are extensions of the former logics. Can someone explain ...
5
votes
3answers
186 views

Introductory books as preparation to read Voevodsky homotopy-theory (HoTT) book

I would like to read Voevodsky HoTT book. However, I lack a lot of the basics. I would need a few introductory books first that cover topics like groupoids, fibrations, W -types, Homotopy theory. ...
5
votes
2answers
433 views

What's the meaning of algebraic data type?

I'm reading a book about Haskell, a programming language, and I came across a construct defined "algebraic data type" that looks like ...
5
votes
1answer
158 views

Difference between a type and a set

I've been trying to understand this distinction for a while, buts its still not making sense to me. Originally, I thought the distinction between type and set was as follows. The relationship ...
5
votes
2answers
87 views

Is there a theory of extensible definitions?

We can define $+$ as a function $\mathbb{N}^2 \rightarrow \mathbb{N}$, and then prove: Theorem 1. The range of $+$ is $\mathbb{N}$. If we later wish to extend $+$ to a function $\mathbb{Z}^2 ...
5
votes
3answers
202 views

Peano axioms expressed in type theory

I have a very strong understanding of 1st order logic and am trying to lean type theory as an alternative. Could someone express the Peano axioms with type-theory? I am especially interested to see ...
5
votes
0answers
106 views

Axiom of Choice - Type Theory (Proof)

Background In Intuitionistic Type Theory (p. 27-28), Martin Löf provides a proof of the axiom of choice that is constructively valid. This version is considerably weaker than the ordinary set theory ...
4
votes
1answer
81 views

How to describe free magmas in more structuralist terms?

Given a generating set $G$ (assume for simplicitly it consists entirely of urelements), the free magma on $G$ can be described concretely as follows. Its underlying set is the least $U \supseteq G$ ...
4
votes
2answers
127 views

Eilenberg Moore category

I've been trying to code up the Eilenberg-Moore category for a monad in Haskell. As I understand it, given a category $C$ and a monad $(T,\eta,\mu)$ on $C$ we build the Eilenberg-Moore category $C^T$ ...
4
votes
2answers
124 views

Is higher order type theory the same as higher order logic?

The internal language of a topos is higher order intuitionistic type theory (or logic). Here the higher order simply refers to allowing function types. In mathematical logic we have higher-order ...
4
votes
1answer
106 views

How does type theory handle division by zero and such?

Say I have a program that needs to not divide by zero: f(x): if nonzero(x): return sin(x)/x else: return 1 If we divide by zero, we get ...
4
votes
3answers
83 views

What's a good resource to learn about the simply typed lambda calculus?

I've read An Introduction to Functional Programming Through Lambda Calculus by Greg Michaelson, and found it to be a very good resource to learn about the untyped lambda calculus. However, I want to ...
4
votes
0answers
144 views

Foundational theories, their uses, interactions and comparisons?

Until now, I heard that there are some theories for building mathematical objects (or at least it is what it seems to my poor knowledge). Some of these are: Set theory; Logic; Category theory; Type ...
4
votes
1answer
97 views

Curry-Howard Correspondence (Proof Theory)

As you all know, the Curry-Howard correspondance provides a link between type theory and predicate logic. Concepts featured in the former, such as $\Pi$-type and $\Sigma$-type can, by the ...
4
votes
0answers
96 views

W-types and inverse image functor

All sheaf topoi have W-types and in fact there's an explicit construction given by Benno van den Berg & Ieke Moerdijk, but the construction is quite involved. I would like to know whether the ...
3
votes
2answers
589 views

Curry-Howard correspondence

I read that the Curry-Howard correspondence introduces an isomorphism between typed functions and logical statements. For example, supposedly the function $$\begin{array}{l} I : \forall a. a \to a\\ ...
3
votes
1answer
100 views

Give an example of a program in Simply Typed Lambda that produces Bottom.

I'm not sure how bottom applies to simply typed lambda calculus. not A is a common abbreviation for A -> ⊥ But I see no way to construct a function of that signature within the theory. Edit: A more ...
3
votes
1answer
160 views

Logic within Type theory. Is there a rough academic consensus on how this should be done?

I guess because of it's presence in several blogs on math and even physics, I've recently started to learn some type theory, often from people who know about it and from books which use it. I want to ...
3
votes
2answers
159 views

How to understand the definition of sets in homotopy type theory and the role of univalence?

Bear with me, I'm a physicist. In homotopy type theory, as I understand it, a type $X$ is a set if all the morphisms over its terms $x:X$ are identies. When I say "morphisms", then I view the term as ...
3
votes
0answers
37 views

Logic in closed symmetric monoidal categories; reference request.

Suppose we want an algebraic theory $T$ to be interpretable in any closed symmetric monoidal category $\mathbf{C}.$ I am thinking in particular of the case where $\mathbf{C}$ is the category of models ...
3
votes
3answers
187 views

Book on lambda calculus logic and type theory

Can someone recommend me a book for self study which will cover topics of logic, lambda calculus and type theory. I know about "Computability and Logic" written by Bolos but it describe recursive ...
3
votes
0answers
73 views

Are large cardinals bi-interperable with type theory?

"Sets in Types, Types in Sets" establishes that the calculus of constructions is bi-interpretable with ZFC + infinitely many inaccessibles. Are there any more results like this higher up the large ...
2
votes
2answers
165 views

Accessible formal specification and explanation of First Order Logic?

I am trying to get good at proofs by working through How To Prove It. Unfortunately I am very bothered by the fact that I do not understand all the formalities in First Order Logic + set theory ...
2
votes
1answer
55 views

Simple type theory: Proof inexistance of closed term

In simple type theory, how can I prove that there is no closed term of type? $$((P \Rightarrow Q) \Rightarrow Q) \Rightarrow P$$
2
votes
1answer
84 views

Struggling with classes

I am still struggling with the concept of classes in ZF set theory. From Jech, Set Theory, p.5: That means: For every formula $\varphi(x)$ there is a class (which is definable). There are ...
2
votes
2answers
476 views

Constructing dependent product (right adjoint to pullback) in a locally cartesian closed category

I've been trying to find a proof that the pullback functors in a locally cartesian closed category have right adjoints (used to model the notion of indexed product inside a category (rather than ...
2
votes
2answers
84 views

Two questions on homotopy type theory

In reading the HoTT book, I have found that it is easy to become bogged down in detail and hard to tell the general 'big picture' of what is going on. I hope to get some general answer to the ...
2
votes
1answer
87 views

Unprovable Equivalence in Type Theory

Let $\prec$ be a binary relation on a set $A$… A predicate $P(x)$ set $(x:A)$ is said to be progressive with respect to $(A,\prec)$ if \begin{equation} (\forall a:A)\Big((\forall b:A)\big(b \prec a ...
2
votes
2answers
243 views

Has a Dependent Type always a Type?

I am experimenting with dependent types. Lets assume the following short notation: ...
2
votes
1answer
144 views

How to represent Smullyan's “Mockingbird” puzzles in (Homotopy) Type Theory?

(If you're unfamiliar with the puzzles from To Mock a Mockingbird, three pages tell you everything you should need.) Is it possible to solve the riddles in To Mock a Mockingbird in a "propositions as ...
2
votes
1answer
80 views

Variables in Types in type theory

I'm slowly grasping this, though the different formulations of type theory make it difficult. In http://imps.mcmaster.ca/doc/seven-virtues.pdf types can only be formed from *, i, and a->b when a and ...
2
votes
2answers
51 views

mapping simple first oreder problems to type theory

Since Peano axioms expressed in type theory doesn't seem to be going anywhere, here is a simpler question: How would I map simple first order systems to an equivalent type theoretic notation. ...
2
votes
0answers
33 views

What if typing judgements were propositions?

Suppose we created a modified type theory in which typing judgments like $x : X$ are not judgments at all; rather, they're propositions. Would this be a bad idea? If so, why? A good answer should ...
2
votes
0answers
44 views

Set Theory - Well Order (Lexiographical combination)

Question: Prove constructively that if $(A_{1},\prec_{1})$ and $(A_{2},\prec_{2})$ are two well-ordered sets then their lexicographical combination $(A_{1} \times A_{2},<_{1,2})$ is also well ...
2
votes
0answers
66 views

What are the main differences between set theory versus pure type systems?

According to wikipedia, a pure type system: ...is a form of typed lambda calculus that allows an arbitrary number of sorts and dependencies between any of these... Pure type systems may ...
2
votes
0answers
70 views

Introductory text about different stratification methods in higher-order logic and set theory

Could someone recommend me a good overview text about stratification of predicates, comprehension axioms, and other methods of avoiding the paradoxes in untyped or only loosely/relatively typed ...
1
vote
2answers
298 views

formal rules for avoiding bound/unbound variable problems in lambda calculus

I have been interested in learning formal math formally enough so that I could write a proof assistant using some simple parsing tools, and explain to someone else with little math knowledge how to ...
1
vote
2answers
98 views

What does $x : X$ mean?

I've tried to learn type theory a few times, but the notation $x : X$ always trips me up. Does it mean: $x$ represents a fixed but arbitrary inhabitant of the type $X$? The variable $x$ is just ...