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

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

Constructing Infinitary Quotient-Inductive Types

This paper introduces an expressive class of quotient-inductive types, called QW-types. We show that in dependent type theory with uniqueness of identity proofs, even the infinitary case of QW-types can be encoded using the combination of inductive-inductive definitions involving strictly positive occurrences of Hofmann-style quotient types, and Abel's size types. The latter, which provide a convenient constructive abstraction of what classically would be accomplished with transfinite ordinals, are used to prove termination of the recursive definitions of the elimination and computation properties of our encoding of QW-types. The development is formalized using the Agda theorem prover

Constructing Infinitary Quotient-Inductive Types

This paper introduces an expressive class of quotient-inductive types, called QW-types. We show that in dependent type theory with uniqueness of identity proofs, even the infinitary case of QW-types can be encoded using the combination of inductive-inductive definitions involving strictly positive occurrences of Hofmann-style quotient types, and Abel's size types. The latter, which provide a convenient constructive abstraction of what classically would be accomplished with transfinite ordinals, are used to prove termination of the recursive definitions of the elimination and computation properties of our encoding of QW-types. The development is formalized using the Agda theorem prover.Comment: The accompanying Agda code can be found at https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.4818

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

Large and Infinitary Quotient Inductive-Inductive Types

Quotient inductive-inductive types (QIITs) are generalized inductive types which allow sorts to be indexed over previously declared sorts, and allow usage of equality constructors. QIITs are especially useful for algebraic descriptions of type theories and constructive definitions of real, ordinal and surreal numbers. We develop new metatheory for large QIITs, large elimination, recursive equations and infinitary constructors. As in prior work, we describe QIITs using a type theory where each context represents a QIIT signature. However, in our case the theory of signatures can also describe its own signature, modulo universe sizes. We bootstrap the model theory of signatures using self-description and a Church-coded notion of signature, without using complicated raw syntax or assuming an existing internal QIIT of signatures. We give semantics to described QIITs by modeling each signature as a finitely complete CwF (category with families) of algebras. Compared to the case of finitary QIITs, we additionally need to show invariance under algebra isomorphisms in the semantics. We do this by modeling signature types as isofibrations. Finally, we show by a term model construction that every QIIT is constructible from the syntax of the theory of signatures

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

Normalisation by evaluation for dependent types

We develop normalisation by evaluation (NBE) for dependent types based on presheaf categories. Our construction is formulated using internal type theory using quotient inductive types. We use a typed presentation hence there are no preterms or realizers in our construction. NBE for simple types is using a logical relation between the syntax and the presheaf interpretation. In our construction, we merge the presheaf interpretation and the logical relation into a proof-relevant logical predicate. We have formalized parts of the construction in Agda

Quantitative polynomial functors

Data types are the basic building blocks of modern type theories and programming languages. Having more powerful data types around can increase the proof-theoretic strength of the theory, i.e., allow more programs to be written, and can also make existing proofs/programs more convenient to write. Recent advances in type theories such as cubical type theory have also been accompanied by advances in data type theory, such as quotient and higher inductive types. In this paper, we explore what a corresponding notion of (non-higher, so far) inductive types for the also recently introduced type theory Quantitative Type Theory (QTT) might be. QTT combines dependent types and linear types, in the sense of linear logic. By using linearity to track variable (and hence resource) usage of programs, QTT thus promises to enable formal reasoning about both functional and non-functional correctness of programs. A variant of QTT is implemented in the Idris 2 programming language, and we hope that our work can be used as a foundational justification for the implementation of data types there. Conversely, we have used Idris 2 to mechanically verify parts of our development