Categorical Semantics for Logic-Enriched Type Theories · 2011-09-15 · Categorical Semantics for Logic-Enriched Type Theories Robin Adams Royal Holloway, University of London TYPES

Categorical Semantics for Logic-Enriched Type Theories

Robin Adams

Royal Holloway, University of London

TYPES 2011, 8 September 2011

Robin Adams (RHUL) Categorical Semantics for LTTs TYPES 2011 1 / 21

The Curry-Howard Isomorphism

There are two facts that are both sometimes referred to as theCurry-Howard isomorphism. One is trivial, one is not.

Non-trivial Fact

When we do so:

the rules for conjunction are the rules for product type;

the rules for impliciation are the rules for non-dependent functiontype;

the rules for universal quantification are (almost) the rules fordependent function type;

the rules for classical logic are the rules for control operators (usually);

the rules for modal logic are the rules for metavariables;

etc.

In this talk, ‘Curry-Howard’ shall mean the second.


The Curry-Howard IsomorphismThere are two facts that are both sometimes referred to as theCurry-Howard isomorphism. One is trivial, one is not.

Trivial Fact

It is possible to write a linear syntax for natural deduction proofs, and thenwrite Γ ` P : φ for ‘P is a proof of φ (that depends on the free variablesand hypotheses Γ)’

Non-trivial Fact

When we do so:






etc.





Non-trivial Fact

When we do so:






etc.





Non-trivial Fact

When we do so:






etc.



My Beliefs on Curry-Howard

I believe:

1 Curry-Howard is surprising,

2 There is something there to be explained. (Why do propositionsbehave like types?)

3 We do not have a good explanation yet. (Propositions are notliterally types.)

4 We are having problems because we tacetly assumepropositions-as-types.

5 We should instead turn Curry-Howard into a mathematical object.



I believe:








I believe:








I believe:








I believe:








I believe:







IntroductionWe have:

systems of first-orderarithmetic

systems ofsecond-orderarithmetic

set theories

type theories

. . .

It is very difficult totranslate between thesystems on the left,and the systems on theright.

Syntax and semanticsare both very different.

Logic-enriched typetheories (LTTs) help.

PA

I 0Σ

IΣ2

I 1Σ





set theories

type theories

. . .




I 0Σ

IΣ2

I 1Σ

ATR 0

WKL0

RCA 0

ACA 0PA





set theories

type theories

. . .




I 0Σ

IΣ2

I 1Σ

ATR 0

WKL0

RCA 0

ACA 0PA

CZF

IZF

ZF





set theories

type theories

. . .




I 0Σ

IΣ2

I 1Σ

WKL0

RCA 0

ACA 0

ATR 0

PA

CZF

IZF

ZF

1

ML 2

ML

ML

MLW

V1ML





set theories

type theories

. . .




I 0Σ

IΣ2

I 1Σ

WKL0

RCA 0

ACA 0

ATR 0

PA

CZF

IZF

ZF

1

ML 2

ML

ML

MLW

V1ML


Introduction




I 0Σ

IΣ2

I 1Σ

WKL0

RCA 0

ACA 0

ATR 0

PA

CZF

IZF

ZF

1

ML 2

ML

ML

MLW

V1ML


Introduction




I 0Σ

IΣ2

I 1Σ

WKL0

RCA 0

ACA 0

ATR 0

PA

CZF

IZF

ZF

1

ML 2

ML

ML

MLW

V1ML


Introduction


I If propositions reallywere types, itshould be easy.



I 0Σ

IΣ2

I 1Σ

WKL0

RCA 0

ACA 0

ATR 0

PA

CZF

IZF

ZF

1

ML 2

ML

ML

MLW

V1ML


Introduction




I 0Σ

IΣ2

I 1Σ

WKL0

RCA 0

ACA 0

ATR 0

PA

CZF

IZF

ZF

1

ML 2

ML

ML

MLW

V1ML

LTT

LTTW

0

ML(CZF)


Introduction




I 0Σ

IΣ2

I 1Σ

WKL0

RCA 0

ACA 0

ATR 0

PA

CZF

IZF

ZF

1

ML 2

ML

ML

MLW

V1ML

LTT

LTTW

0

ML(CZF)


Introduction




LTT ML+EM

Curry−Howard


Introduction




Syntactic translationsare possible.

Curry-Howard becomesjust one of a family.

LTT ML+EM

Curry−Howard


Introduction




Syntactic translationsare possible.

Curry-Howard becomesjust one of a family.

LTT ML+EM

Curry−Howard

Double Negation

Russell−Prawitz


Introduction




Syntactic translationsare not enough.

LTT ML+EM

Curry−Howard

Double Negation

Russell−Prawitz


Introduction




We need a semanticsfor LTTs.

LTT ML+EM

Curry−Howard

Double Negation

Russell−Prawitz


1 Logic-Enriched Type TheoriesSyntax

2 Categorical SemanticsIntroduction to Categorical SemanticsCategorical Semantics for Logic-Enriched Type TheoriesSoundness and Completeness Theorems

3 ApplicationsConservativity of ACA0 over PABounded Quantification


Syntax of an LTT

LTT0 is a system with:Judgement forms:

Γ ` A Type Γ ` M : AΓ ` φ Prop Γ ` P : φ

and associated equality judgements.

arrow types A→ B

product types A× B

natural numbers Na type universe U

classical predicate logic

a propositional universe prop Type

We write Set (A) for A→ prop.


Syntax of an LTT

LTT0 is a system with:

arrow types A→ Bwith objects λx : A.M

product types A× B






Syntax of an LTT


arrow types A→ B

product types A× Bwith objects (M,M)






Syntax of an LTT


arrow types A→ B

product types A× B

natural numbers Nwith objects 0 and S(M)

a type universe U





Syntax of an LTT


arrow types A→ B

product types A× B

natural numbers Na type universe Uwith objects N̂ and M×̂M





Syntax of an LTT


arrow types A→ B

product types A× B


classical predicate logicwith propositions M =A M, ¬φ, φ ∧ ψ, ∀x : A.φ, . . .




Syntax of an LTT


arrow types A→ B

product types A× B






Syntax of an LTT


arrow types A→ B

product types A× B






The Propositional UniverseA type universe is a type whose objects are names of types:

The universe U contains N̂, N̂×̂N̂, . . . .

A type is small iff it has a name in U, large otherwise.

A propositional universe is a type whose objects are names of propositions:

The universe prop contains ¬̂0=̂N̂S(0), ∀̂x : N̂.x=̂N̂x , etc.

In LTT0, prop contains the propositions that do not involvequantification over large types.

A proposition is small iff it has a name in prop, large otherwise.

The strength of an LTT is determined by which types and whichpropositions we can eliminate over.

We can only eliminate N over small types.

We can only use proof by induction with small propositions.

Adding a new type or connective is conservative. Adding it to theuniverses is not.












































































































Adding a new type or connective is conservative. Adding it to theuniverses is not.Robin Adams (RHUL) Categorical Semantics for LTTs TYPES 2011 7 / 21

Categorical Semantics

We can give semantics to a type theory in a variety of ways:

Map types to sets, ω-sets, PERs, sheaves, domains, . . .

To save repeating work, we:

define the properties a category must have for us to build a semanticsfrom its objects;

give semantics to the theory in an arbitrary category with thoseproperties.


Categorical Semantics for a Dependent Type TheoryTo give semantics to adependent type theory, weneed:

a category B (whoseobjects interpret contextsΓ);

a category E (whoseobjects interprettypes-in-contextΓ ` A Type);

a functor P : E→ B→(mapping Γ ` A to(Γ, x : A)→ Γ).

such that

p = cod ◦P is a fibration

B has a terminal object

. . .

EP- B→

B

p

?






such that



. . .

E

P- B→

B

p

?






such that



. . .

EP- B→

B

p

?�

cod






such that



. . .

EP- B→

B

p

?�

cod


Categorical Semantics for a LTT

To give semantics to a LTT,we need, in addition:

a category P (whoseobjects interpretpropositions-in-contextΓ ` φ Prop);

a fibration q : P→ B(mapping Γ ` φ Prop toΓ)

for every objectΓ ` A Type in E,a right adjoint π∗ a ∀ anda left adjoint ∃ a π∗

such that P is a locallyCartesian closed category.

P EP- B→

B

p

?�

cod








P EP- B→

B

p

?�

codq

-








P EP- B→

B

p

?�

codq

-








P EP- B→

B

p

?�

codq

-


Categorical Semantics for UniversesTo give semantics to a dependent type theory with a universe (U,T ), weneed:

a substructure (intended to represent the small types and smallcontexts)

an object U in E over the empty context (terminal object)a generic object x : U ` T (x) Type in E over domP(` U Type);

D ⊂ - E

A?

⊂ - B?

To give semantics to (prop,V ), we need in addition:

a substructure (intended to represent the small propositions andcontexts consisting solely of small propositions)an object prop in E over the terminal objecta generic object V in E over domPprop.

We require > → 〈x : N〉 → 〈x : N〉 to be a weak fibred natural numberobject in both of these right-hand-sides.



a substructure (intended to represent the small types and smallcontexts)an object U in E over the empty context (terminal object)

a generic object x : U ` T (x) Type in E over domP(` U Type);

D ⊂ - E

A?

⊂ - B?






a substructure (intended to represent the small types and smallcontexts)an object U in E over the empty context (terminal object)a generic object x : U ` T (x) Type in E over domP(` U Type);

D � D×A B

A?� B

?





Categorical Semantics for Universes

To give semantics to a dependent type theory with a universe (U,T ), weneed:


an object U in E over the empty context (terminal object)



a substructure (intended to represent the small propositions andcontexts consisting solely of small propositions)

an object prop in E over the terminal object

a generic object V in E over domPprop.







an object prop in E over the terminal objecta generic object V in E over domPprop.

Q ⊂ - P

C?

⊂ - B?






a substructure (intended to represent the small propositions andcontexts consisting solely of small propositions)an object prop in E over the terminal object


Q ⊂ - P

C?

⊂ - B?







Q � Q×C B

C?� B

?

























Interpretation

Given an LTTW-category C, define:

for every valid context Γ, an object [[Γ]] of B;

for every type A such that Γ ` A Type, an object [[Γ ` A]] of E suchthat p [[Γ ` A]] = [[Γ]]

for every term M such that Γ ` M : A, an arrow[[Γ ` M]] : [[Γ]]→ domP [[Γ ` A]]

for every proposition φ such that Γ ` φprop, an object [[Γ ` φ]] of Pover [[Γ]]


Soundness Theorem

Theorem

Every judgement is true in any LTTW-category. That is:

1 If Γ ` A = B then [[Γ ` A]] = [[Γ ` B]]

2 If Γ ` M = N : A then [[Γ ` M]] = [[Γ ` N]]

3 If Γ ` φ = ψ then [[Γ ` φ]] = [[Γ ` ψ]]

4 If there is a proof Γ ` P : φ then there is a vertical arrow> → [[Γ ` φ]] in the fibre P/ [[Γ]].

Proof.

Induction on derivations.


Completeness Theorem

Theorem

If a judgement is true in every category C, then it is derivable in T .

Proof.

Define the category Cl (T ), the classifying category of T , thus:

the objects of B are the valid contexts;

the objects of E are the pairs (Γ,A) such that Γ ` A Type,quotiented by equality;

. . .

If a judgement is true in Cl (T ), then it is derivable in T .

In fact, Cl (T ) is an initial object in the metacategory ofLTTW-categories. The interpretation given earlier is the unique functorCl (T )→ C. This is the sort of thing that gets category theorists excited.



Theorem


Proof.




. . .


In fact, Cl (T ) is an initial object in the metacategory ofLTTW-categories. The interpretation given earlier is the unique functorCl (T )→ C.

This is the sort of thing that gets category theorists excited.



Theorem


Proof.




. . .


In fact, Cl (T ) is an initial object in the metacategory ofLTTW-categories. The interpretation given earlier is the unique functorCl (T )→ C. This is the sort of thing that gets category theorists excited.


Conservativity of LTT0 over PAI have previously given syntactic proofs that LTT0 is conservative over PA.We can now give a semantic proof of the same result.

Theorem

LTT0 is conservative over PA.

Proof.

From any model M of PA, we construct a model of LTT0.

The objects of E are the sets built up from |M| by ×, → and P.The objects of B are the sets of all sequences of objects of E. The arrowsare the hor functions.The objects of P over b ∈ B are all subsets of b.

We can similarly prove LTT0 conservative over ACA0.

Corollary

ACA0 is conservative over PA.



Theorem


Proof.

From any model M of PA, we construct a model of LTT0.Define the higher-order recursive (hor) functions to be those built up from0M and SM by composition, primitive recursion, pairing, projection,lambda-abstraction and application.



Corollary




Theorem


Proof.

From any model M of PA, we construct a model of LTT0.Define the higher-order recursive (hor) functions to be those built up from0M and SM by composition, primitive recursion, pairing, projection,lambda-abstraction and application.Define the arithmetic predicates to be those built up from equality byBoolean operations and quantification over |M|.



Corollary




Theorem


Proof.

From any model M of PA, we construct a model of LTT0.The objects of E are the sets built up from |M| by ×, → and P,where A→ B is the set of hor functions from A to B,and PA is the set of arithmetic subsets of A.

The objects of B are the sets of all sequences of objects of E. The arrowsare the hor functions.The objects of P over b ∈ B are all subsets of b.


Corollary




Theorem


Proof.

From any model M of PA, we construct a model of LTT0.The objects of E are the sets built up from |M| by ×, → and P.The objects of B are the sets of all sequences of objects of E. The arrowsare the hor functions.

The objects of P over b ∈ B are all subsets of b.


Corollary




Theorem


Proof.

From any model M of PA, we construct a model of LTT0.The objects of E are the sets built up from |M| by ×, → and P.The objects of B are the sets of all sequences of objects of E. The arrowsare the hor functions.The objects of P over b ∈ B are all subsets of b.

Note that E and P are radically different.

We can similarly prove LTT0

conservative over ACA0.

Corollary




Theorem


Proof.

From any model M of PA, we construct a model of LTT0.The objects of E are the sets built up from |M| by ×, → and P.The objects of B are the sets of all sequences of objects of E. The arrowsare the hor functions.The objects of P over b ∈ B are all subsets of b.


Corollary



Bounded Quantification

Problem: How do we turn prop into the set of Σ0-propositions?

Just close it under bounded quantification? Categorical semantics arehorrible.Answer: Put (a name of) prop in U.We can define bounded quantification by elimination N over prop:

∀x < 0.φ(x) = >∀x < S(n).φ(x) = ∀x < n.φ(x) ∧ φ(n)

Conversely, any formula in prop in the new LTT corresponds to aΣ0-formula in I Σ0(exp).(Show that the functions in N→ N are all defined by a Σ0-formula inI Σ0(exp). Use the fact that the Σ0-definable functions are closed underprimitive recursion.)



Problem: How do we turn prop into the set of Σ0-propositions?Just close it under bounded quantification? Categorical semantics arehorrible.

Answer: Put (a name of) prop in U.We can define bounded quantification by elimination N over prop:

∀x < 0.φ(x) = >∀x < S(n).φ(x) = ∀x < n.φ(x) ∧ φ(n)




Problem: How do we turn prop into the set of Σ0-propositions?Just close it under bounded quantification? Categorical semantics arehorrible.Answer: Put (a name of) prop in U.

We can define bounded quantification by elimination N over prop:

∀x < 0.φ(x) = >∀x < S(n).φ(x) = ∀x < n.φ(x) ∧ φ(n)




Problem: How do we turn prop into the set of Σ0-propositions?Just close it under bounded quantification? Categorical semantics arehorrible.Answer: Put (a name of) prop in U.We can define bounded quantification by elimination N over prop:

∀x < 0.φ(x) = >∀x < S(n).φ(x) = ∀x < n.φ(x) ∧ φ(n)





∀x < 0.φ(x) = >∀x < S(n).φ(x) = ∀x < n.φ(x) ∧ φ(n)

Conversely, any formula in prop in the new LTT corresponds to aΣ0-formula in I Σ0(exp).

(Show that the functions in N→ N are all defined by a Σ0-formula inI Σ0(exp). Use the fact that the Σ0-definable functions are closed underprimitive recursion.)




∀x < 0.φ(x) = >∀x < S(n).φ(x) = ∀x < n.φ(x) ∧ φ(n)



Conclusion

Logic-enriched type theories are the right setting for investigating manyfoundational questions in type theory, and in orthodox logic.

At themoment, they are a solution looking for a problem.

I don’t want to carry on finding new proofs of old results.

Questions I plan to investigate:

What is the proof-theoretic ordinal of this LTT?

What is the set of functions definable in this LTT?

Some logical features work nicely in LTTs (Σ0-induction,Σ1-induction)

Some do not (Σ2-induction)

What’s the difference between these?

Please bring me some more.


Conclusion

Logic-enriched type theories are the right setting for investigating manyfoundational questions in type theory, and in orthodox logic. At themoment, they are a solution looking for a problem.










Conclusion











Conclusion











Syntax of an LTTLTT0 is a system with:Judgement forms:

Γ ` A type Γ ` M : AΓ ` φ Prop Γ ` P : φ

and associated equality judgements.

Type A ::=

A→ A | A× A | N | U | T (M) | Set (A)

Term M ::= x

| λx : A.M | MM | (M,M) | π1(M) | π2(M) |0 | S(M) | EN(M,M,M,M) | N̂ | M×̂M |{x : A | P}

Proposition φ ::=

M =A M | ¬φ | φ ∧ φ | φ ∨ φ | φ→ φ |∀x : A.φ | ∃x : A.φ | prop | V (P)

Proof P ::=

· · · | M=̂MM | ¬̂φ | φ∧̂φ | · · · | M ∈ M


Syntax of an LTTLTT0 is a system with:

arrow types

product types

natural numbers

a type universe closed under N and ×classical predicate logic

a propositional universe

typed sets

Type A ::= A→ A

| A× A | N | U | T (M) | Set (A)

Term M ::= x | λx : A.M | MM

| (M,M) | π1(M) | π2(M) |0 | S(M) | EN(M,M,M,M) | N̂ | M×̂M |{x : A | P}

Proposition φ ::=


Proof P ::=

· · · | M=̂MM | ¬̂φ | φ∧̂φ | · · · | M ∈ M



arrow types

product types

natural numbers



typed sets

Type A ::= A→ A | A× A

| N | U | T (M) | Set (A)

Term M ::= x | λx : A.M | MM | (M,M) | π1(M) | π2(M)

|0 | S(M) | EN(M,M,M,M) | N̂ | M×̂M |{x : A | P}

Proposition φ ::=


Proof P ::=

· · · | M=̂MM | ¬̂φ | φ∧̂φ | · · · | M ∈ M



arrow types

product types

natural numbers



typed sets

Type A ::= A→ A | A× A | N

| U | T (M) | Set (A)

Term M ::= x | λx : A.M | MM | (M,M) | π1(M) | π2(M) |0 | S(M) | EN(M,M,M,M)

| N̂ | M×̂M |{x : A | P}

Proposition φ ::=


Proof P ::=

· · · | M=̂MM | ¬̂φ | φ∧̂φ | · · · | M ∈ M



arrow types

product types

natural numbers

a type universe closed under N and ×



typed sets

Type A ::= A→ A | A× A | N | U | T (M)

| Set (A)

Term M ::= x | λx : A.M | MM | (M,M) | π1(M) | π2(M) |0 | S(M) | EN(M,M,M,M) | N̂ | M×̂M |

{x : A | P}

Proposition φ ::=


Proof P ::=

· · · | M=̂MM | ¬̂φ | φ∧̂φ | · · · | M ∈ M



arrow types

product types

natural numbers



typed sets

Type A ::= A→ A | A× A | N | U | T (M)

| Set (A)


{x : A | P}

Proposition φ ::= M =A M | ¬φ | φ ∧ φ | φ ∨ φ | φ→ φ |∀x : A.φ | ∃x : A.φ

| prop | V (P)

Proof P ::= · · ·

| M=̂MM | ¬̂φ | φ∧̂φ | · · · | M ∈ M



arrow types

product types

natural numbers



typed sets

Type A ::= A→ A | A× A | N | U | T (M)

| Set (A)


{x : A | P}

Proposition φ ::= M =A M | ¬φ | φ ∧ φ | φ ∨ φ | φ→ φ |∀x : A.φ | ∃x : A.φ | prop | V (P)

Proof P ::= · · · | M=̂MM | ¬̂φ | φ∧̂φ | · · ·

| M ∈ M



arrow types

product types

natural numbers



typed sets

Type A ::= A→ A | A× A | N | U | T (M) | Set (A)Term M ::= x | λx : A.M | MM | (M,M) | π1(M) | π2(M) |

0 | S(M) | EN(M,M,M,M) | N̂ | M×̂M |{x : A | P}

Proposition φ ::= M =A M | ¬φ | φ ∧ φ | φ ∨ φ | φ→ φ |∀x : A.φ | ∃x : A.φ | prop | V (P)

Proof P ::= · · · | M=̂MM | ¬̂φ | φ∧̂φ | · · · | M ∈ MRobin Adams (RHUL) Categorical Semantics for LTTs TYPES 2011 18 / 21

We can give a semantic proof of this result:A function f : Nn → N is definable in PA iff there is a formulaφ[x1, . . . , xn, y ] such that:

1 for all a1, . . . , an, PA ` φ[a1, . . . , an, f (a1, . . . , an)];

2 PA ` ∀x1 · · · ∀xn∃!yφ[x1, . . . , xn, y ]

Theorem

The functions definable in PA are exactly the ε0-recursive functions.

Proof.

Construct a model of LTT0 in which the arrows are the ε0-recursivefunctions. Then apply conservativity.


History of LTTs

2002 Aczel and Gambino [?] define translations betweenConstructive ZF (CZF) and the type theory ML1V.

2006 Gambino and Aczel [?] introduce the logic-enriched typetheory ML(CZF) as a half-way stage.

2007 Adams and Luo [?] show how an LTT can represent Weyl’sschool of predicativism.

2010 Adams and Luo [?] show their system is not conservativeover PA.


History of LTTs






History of LTTs






History of LTTs






The Moral of the Story

From this work, I take the message:

LTTs can do some things better than either orthodox logics or typetheories.

LTTs are very useful as an intermediary between orthodox logics andtype theories.

LTTs turn Curry-Howard into a mathematical object — a translationfrom an LTT to a type theory;

. . . which becomes just one of a family of translations.

But I need semantics to guide future research.

I also need to think of better names.

I do not claim:

LTTs are ‘better’ than predicate logics or type theories.

Curry-Howard is ‘bad’










I do not claim:












I do not claim:












I do not claim:












I do not claim:












I do not claim:












I do not claim:












I do not claim:












I do not claim:




Documents

Categorical Semantics for Logic-Enriched Type Theories · 2011-09-15 · Categorical Semantics for Logic-Enriched Type Theories Robin Adams Royal Holloway, University of London TYPES