Skip to main content
10 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Mar 17, 2021 at 16:50 comment added xrq Sounds a bit like Garrigue and Remy's ambivalent types (?) for GADTs. Doesn't really sound like what you want, but there is something like "up to a graph isomorphism". Yes, the types should be represented as graphs not just trees! But then this is pretty far away from MLTT...
Mar 16, 2021 at 10:43 history edited user61651 CC BY-SA 4.0
added 147 characters in body
Mar 14, 2021 at 19:30 comment added Andrej Bauer But we do. "Up to judgemental equality" is a lot more rigid than "up to homotopy". For instance, if $t : A$ and $A \simeq B$ then it does not follow that $t : B$, you have to transport $t$ explicitly to $B$.
Mar 14, 2021 at 18:19 comment added user61651 Just from a homotopy perspective we can think of terms as points of spaces and equalities as paths so I wondered if we could rigidify typing.
Mar 14, 2021 at 18:12 comment added Andrej Bauer That sounds very restrictive. Why would you want that? Normally one instead has uniqueness of typing: if $\Gamma \vdash t : A$ and $\Gamma \vdash t : B$ then $\Gamma \vdash A \equiv B$.
Mar 14, 2021 at 18:04 comment added user61651 @AndrejBauer the question is imprecise but I want a more unique typing where terms have a type not only unique to to judgmental equality but rather unique up to isomorphism of abstract syntax trees. I will try to make it more precise.
Mar 14, 2021 at 17:20 comment added Andrej Bauer The answer to the question about normal forms is obviously negative, $\mathrm{refl}(0)$ is normal inhabitant of the non-normal type $\mathrm{Id}(\mathbb{N}, 0, (\lambda x . x) 0)$.
Mar 14, 2021 at 17:18 comment added Andrej Bauer Just to be sure: you really mean type inference and not type checking?
Mar 14, 2021 at 15:29 answer added Jesper timeline score: 3
Mar 14, 2021 at 6:30 history asked user61651 CC BY-SA 4.0