Should Type Theory replace Set Theory as the Foundation of Mathematics
We discuss why Type Theory is preferable as foundation of Mathematics compared to set theory.
Discover
Research tools
Network
Opportunities
Account
Source author record
Thorsten Altenkirch appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.
Catalog footprint
Research graph
Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.
BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.
Published work
We discuss why Type Theory is preferable as foundation of Mathematics compared to set theory.
Given a type A in homotopy type theory (HoTT), we can define the free infinity-group on A as the loop space of the suspension of A+1. Equivalently, this free higher group can be defined as a higher inductive type F(A) with constructors unit : F(A), cons : A -> F(A) -> F(A), and conditions saying that every cons(a) is an auto-equivalence on F(A). Assuming that A is a set (i.e. satisfies the principle of unique identity proofs), we are interested in the question whether F(A) is a set as well, which is very much related to an open problem in the HoTT book. We show an approximation to the question, namely that the fundamental groups of F(A) are trivial, i.e. that the 1-truncation of F(A) is a set.
We consider the problem of defining the integers in Homotopy Type Theory (HoTT). We can define the type of integers as signed natural numbers (i.e., using a coproduct), but its induction principle is very inconvenient to work with, since it leads to an explosion of cases. An alternative is to use set-quotients, but here we need to use set-truncation to avoid non-trivial higher equalities. This results in a recursion principle that only allows us to define function into sets (types satisfying UIP). In this paper we consider higher inductive types using either a small universe or bi-invertible maps. These types represent integers without explicit set-truncation that are equivalent to the usual coproduct representation. This is an interesting example since it shows how some coherence problems can be handled in HoTT. We discuss some open questions triggered by this work. The proofs have been formally verified using cubical Agda.
In homotopy type theory (HoTT), all constructions are necessarily stable under homotopy equivalence. This has shortcomings: for example, it is believed that it is impossible to define a type of semi-simplicial types. More generally, it is difficult and often impossible to handle towers of coherences. To address this, we propose a 2-level theory which features both strict and weak equality. This can essentially be represented as two type theories: an "outer" one, containing a strict equality type former, and an "inner" one, which is some version of HoTT. Our type theory is inspired by Voevosky's suggestion of a homotopy type system (HTS) which currently refers to a range of ideas. A core insight of our proposal is that we no not need any form of equality reflection in order to achieve what HTS was suggested for. Instead, having unique identity proofs in the outer type theory is sufficient, and it also has the meta-theoretical advantage of not breaking decidability of type checking. The inner theory can be an easily justifiable extensions of HoTT, allowing the construction of "infinite structures" which are considered impossible in plain HoTT. Alternatively, we can set the inner theory to be exactly the current standard formulation of HoTT, in which case our system can be thought of as a type-theoretic framework for working with "schematic" definitions in HoTT. As demonstrations, we define semi-simplicial types and formalise constructions of Reedy fibrant diagrams.