Type theory in type theory using quotient inductive types

We present an internal formalisation of a type heory with dependent types in Type Theory using a special case of higher inductive types from Homotopy Type Theory which we call quotient inductive types (QITs). Our formalisation of type theory avoids referring to preterms or a typability relation but defines directly well typed objects by an inductive definition. We use the elimination principle to define the set-theoretic and logical predicate interpretation. The work has been formalized using the Agda system extended with QITs using postulates

Quotient types in type theory

Martin-Lof's intuitionistic type theory (Type Theory) is a formal system that serves not only as a foundation of constructive mathematics but also as a dependently typed programming language. Dependent types are types that depend on values of other types. Type Theory is based on the Curry-Howard isomorphism which relates computer programs with mathematical proofs so that we can do computer-aided formal reasoning and write certified programs in programming languages like Agda, Epigram etc. Martin Lof proposed two variants of Type Theory which are differentiated by the treatment of equality. In Intensional Type Theory, propositional equality defined by identity types does not imply definitional equality, and type checking is decidable. In Extensional Type Theory, propositional equality is identified with definitional equality which makes type checking undecidable. Because of the good computational properties, Intensional Type Theory is more popular, however it lacks some important extensional concepts such as functional extensionality and quotient types. This thesis is about quotient types. A quotient type is a new type whose equality is redefined by a given equivalence relation. However, in the usual formulation of Intensional Type Theory, there is no type former to create a quotient. We also lose canonicity if we add quotient types into Intensional Type Theory as axioms. In this thesis, we first investigate the expected syntax of quotient types and explain it with categorical notions. For quotients which can be represented as a setoid as well as defined as a set without a quotient type former, we propose to define an algebraic structure of quotients called definable quotients. It relates the setoid interpretation and the set definition via a normalisation function which returns a normal form (canonical choice) for each equivalence class. It can be seen as a simulation of quotient types and it helps theorem proving because we can benefit from both representations. However this approach cannot be used for all quotients. It seems that we cannot define a normalisation function for some quotients in Type Theory, e.g. Cauchy reals and finite multisets. Quotient types are indeed essential for formalisation of mathematics and reasoning of programs. Then we consider some models of Type Theory where types are interpreted as structured objects such as setoids, groupoids or weak omega-groupoids. In these models equalities are internalised into types which means that it is possible to redefine equalities. We present an implementation of Altenkirch's setoid model and show that quotient types can be defined within this model. We also describe a new extension of Martin-Lof type theory called Homotopy Type Theory where types are interpreted as weak omega-groupoids. It can be seen as a generalisation of the groupoid model which makes extensional concepts including quotient types available. We also introduce a syntactic encoding of weak omega-groupoids which can be seen as a first step towards building a weak omega-groupoids model in Intensional Type Theory. All of these implementations were performed in the dependently typed programming language Agda which is based on intensional Martin-Lof type theory

W-types in setoids

W-types and their categorical analogue, initial algebras for polynomial endofunctors, are an important tool in predicative systems to replace transfinite recursion on well-orderings. Current arguments to obtain W-types in quotient completions rely on assumptions, like Uniqueness of Identity Proofs, or on constructions that involve recursion into a universe, that limit their applicability to a specific setting. We present an argument, verified in Coq, that instead uses dependent W-types in the underlying type theory to construct W-types in the setoid model. The immediate advantage is to have a proof more type-theoretic in flavour, which directly uses recursion on the underlying W-type to prove initiality. Furthermore, taking place in intensional type theory and not requiring any recursion into a universe, it may be generalised to various categorical quotient completions, with the aim of finding a uniform construction of extensional W-types.Comment: 17 pages, formalised in Coq; v2: added reference to formalisatio

Quotient types in type theory

Martin-Lof's intuitionistic type theory (Type Theory) is a formal system that serves not only as a foundation of constructive mathematics but also as a dependently typed programming language. Dependent types are types that depend on values of other types. Type Theory is based on the Curry-Howard isomorphism which relates computer programs with mathematical proofs so that we can do computer-aided formal reasoning and write certified programs in programming languages like Agda, Epigram etc. Martin Lof proposed two variants of Type Theory which are differentiated by the treatment of equality. In Intensional Type Theory, propositional equality defined by identity types does not imply definitional equality, and type checking is decidable. In Extensional Type Theory, propositional equality is identified with definitional equality which makes type checking undecidable. Because of the good computational properties, Intensional Type Theory is more popular, however it lacks some important extensional concepts such as functional extensionality and quotient types. This thesis is about quotient types. A quotient type is a new type whose equality is redefined by a given equivalence relation. However, in the usual formulation of Intensional Type Theory, there is no type former to create a quotient. We also lose canonicity if we add quotient types into Intensional Type Theory as axioms. In this thesis, we first investigate the expected syntax of quotient types and explain it with categorical notions. For quotients which can be represented as a setoid as well as defined as a set without a quotient type former, we propose to define an algebraic structure of quotients called definable quotients. It relates the setoid interpretation and the set definition via a normalisation function which returns a normal form (canonical choice) for each equivalence class. It can be seen as a simulation of quotient types and it helps theorem proving because we can benefit from both representations. However this approach cannot be used for all quotients. It seems that we cannot define a normalisation function for some quotients in Type Theory, e.g. Cauchy reals and finite multisets. Quotient types are indeed essential for formalisation of mathematics and reasoning of programs. Then we consider some models of Type Theory where types are interpreted as structured objects such as setoids, groupoids or weak omega-groupoids. In these models equalities are internalised into types which means that it is possible to redefine equalities. We present an implementation of Altenkirch's setoid model and show that quotient types can be defined within this model. We also describe a new extension of Martin-Lof type theory called Homotopy Type Theory where types are interpreted as weak omega-groupoids. It can be seen as a generalisation of the groupoid model which makes extensional concepts including quotient types available. We also introduce a syntactic encoding of weak omega-groupoids which can be seen as a first step towards building a weak omega-groupoids model in Intensional Type Theory. All of these implementations were performed in the dependently typed programming language Agda which is based on intensional Martin-Lof type theory

Type theory in a type theory with quotient inductive types

Type theory (with dependent types) was introduced by Per Martin-Löf with the intention of providing a foundation for constructive mathematics. A part of constructive mathematics is type theory itself, hence we should be able to say what type theory is using the formal language of type theory. In addition, metatheoretic properties of type theory such as normalisation should be provable in type theory. The usual way of defining type theory formally is by starting with an inductive definition of precontexts, pretypes and preterms and as a second step defining a ternary typing relation over these three components. Well-typed terms are those preterms for which there exists a precontext and pretype such that the relation holds. However, if we use the rich metalanguage of type theory to talk about type theory, we can define well-typed terms directly as an inductive family indexed over contexts and types. We believe that this latter approach is closer to the spirit of type theory where objects come intrinsically with their types. Internalising a type theory with dependent types is challenging because of the mutual definitions of types, terms, substitution of terms and the conversion relation. We use induction induction to express this mutual dependency. Furthermore, to reduce the type-theoretic boilerplate needed for reasoning in the syntax, we encode the conversion relation as the equality type of the syntax. We use equality constructors thus we define the syntax as a quotient inductive type (a special case of higher inductive types from homotopy type theory). We define the syntax of a basic type theory with dependent function space, a base type and a family over the base type as a quotient inductive inductive type. The definition of the syntax comes with a notion of model and an eliminator: whenever one is able to define a model, the eliminator provides a function from the syntax to the model. We show that this method of representing type theory is practically feasible by defining a number of models: the standard model, the logical predicate interpretation for parametricity (as a syntactic translation) and the proof-relevant presheaf logical predicate interpretation. By extending the latter with a quote function back into the syntax, we prove normalisation for type theory. This can be seen as a proof of normalisation by evaluation. Internalising the syntax of type theory is not only of theoretical interest. It opens the possibility of type-theoretic metaprogramming in a type-safe way. This could be used for generic programming in type theory and to implement extensions of type theory which are justified by models such as guarded type theory or homotopy type theory

Type theory in a type theory with quotient inductive types

Type theory (with dependent types) was introduced by Per Martin-Löf with the intention of providing a foundation for constructive mathematics. A part of constructive mathematics is type theory itself, hence we should be able to say what type theory is using the formal language of type theory. In addition, metatheoretic properties of type theory such as normalisation should be provable in type theory. The usual way of defining type theory formally is by starting with an inductive definition of precontexts, pretypes and preterms and as a second step defining a ternary typing relation over these three components. Well-typed terms are those preterms for which there exists a precontext and pretype such that the relation holds. However, if we use the rich metalanguage of type theory to talk about type theory, we can define well-typed terms directly as an inductive family indexed over contexts and types. We believe that this latter approach is closer to the spirit of type theory where objects come intrinsically with their types. Internalising a type theory with dependent types is challenging because of the mutual definitions of types, terms, substitution of terms and the conversion relation. We use induction induction to express this mutual dependency. Furthermore, to reduce the type-theoretic boilerplate needed for reasoning in the syntax, we encode the conversion relation as the equality type of the syntax. We use equality constructors thus we define the syntax as a quotient inductive type (a special case of higher inductive types from homotopy type theory). We define the syntax of a basic type theory with dependent function space, a base type and a family over the base type as a quotient inductive inductive type. The definition of the syntax comes with a notion of model and an eliminator: whenever one is able to define a model, the eliminator provides a function from the syntax to the model. We show that this method of representing type theory is practically feasible by defining a number of models: the standard model, the logical predicate interpretation for parametricity (as a syntactic translation) and the proof-relevant presheaf logical predicate interpretation. By extending the latter with a quote function back into the syntax, we prove normalisation for type theory. This can be seen as a proof of normalisation by evaluation. Internalising the syntax of type theory is not only of theoretical interest. It opens the possibility of type-theoretic metaprogramming in a type-safe way. This could be used for generic programming in type theory and to implement extensions of type theory which are justified by models such as guarded type theory or homotopy type theory

The real projective spaces in homotopy type theory

Homotopy type theory is a version of Martin-L\"of type theory taking advantage of its homotopical models. In particular, we can use and construct objects of homotopy theory and reason about them using higher inductive types. In this article, we construct the real projective spaces, key players in homotopy theory, as certain higher inductive types in homotopy type theory. The classical definition of RP(n), as the quotient space identifying antipodal points of the n-sphere, does not translate directly to homotopy type theory. Instead, we define RP(n) by induction on n simultaneously with its tautological bundle of 2-element sets. As the base case, we take RP(-1) to be the empty type. In the inductive step, we take RP(n+1) to be the mapping cone of the projection map of the tautological bundle of RP(n), and we use its universal property and the univalence axiom to define the tautological bundle on RP(n+1). By showing that the total space of the tautological bundle of RP(n) is the n-sphere, we retrieve the classical description of RP(n+1) as RP(n) with an (n+1)-cell attached to it. The infinite dimensional real projective space, defined as the sequential colimit of the RP(n) with the canonical inclusion maps, is equivalent to the Eilenberg-MacLane space K(Z/2Z,1), which here arises as the subtype of the universe consisting of 2-element types. Indeed, the infinite dimensional projective space classifies the 0-sphere bundles, which one can think of as synthetic line bundles. These constructions in homotopy type theory further illustrate the utility of homotopy type theory, including the interplay of type theoretic and homotopy theoretic ideas.Comment: 8 pages, to appear in proceedings of LICS 201