Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

coq-club - [Coq-Club] Set, Prop, Type

coq-club AT inria.fr

Subject: The Coq mailing list

List archive

[Coq-Club] Set, Prop, Type


chronological Thread 
  • From: Jeffrey Harris <janglernpl AT gmail.com>
  • To: coq-club AT pauillac.inria.fr
  • Subject: [Coq-Club] Set, Prop, Type
  • Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2009 03:14:00 -0500
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=bIHHVP+SrRaXP9Qlg8pdJvmABMe5gtRYHWarjUhB9umqBNLP4rcayIkv+9ITM/O/9C 3PpW4xe3O8zrGv8OwUje+xdYrz8YC2IUf1PVXywIr28qaGIrh7C072K14OAh7tuKUP7x bCSxPinXLLk5GLNH4bVDd5FCs+UETPScVjt/o=
  • List-archive: <http://pauillac.inria.fr/pipermail/coq-club/>

Hello!

I am aware that having the special rule that members of type Prop can't be used for computation is useful for efficiency and for extracting programs, but I was curious as to whether there was any "purely mathematical" (sorry, I know that's not very precise) reason for having this restriction. The same for Set. More specifically, if the Calculus of Inductive Constructions were implemented solely with sorts Type(0), Type(1), etc., what would be the differences between that implementation and the implementation with Set and Prop?

Also, do you know of any paper which describes the CIC system with the only sorts being the Type(n)'s?

Thanks,
Jeffrey Harris



Archive powered by MhonArc 2.6.16.

Top of Page