coq-club AT inria.fr
Subject: The Coq mailing list
List archive
- From: David Baelde <david.baelde AT gmail.com>
- To: coq-club AT inria.fr
- Subject: [Coq-Club] Parametricity
- Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 16:13:22 +0200
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:reply-to:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=H905GBMVN+i187l+BExwwAERtcsB9NNiFiImb+ZZO0HrfgBFguIFDboLEDsEG7mJUh cIZdVWf6RJ7cLA5kiWIvCCoIuLibK2MLWRDFWW0wpti8dM6qXclT1SbGl0vG/5O5TVSu O9uqpSCtIX0RMN0FlysmEISokGQl1USsli558=
Hi list,
We (at ProVal) were wondering to which extent Coq is tied to
parametric polymorphism.
There is certainly no way to define a non-parametric function in Coq.
For example, any function of type (forall A:Type, A -> bool) must be
equal (at least extensively) to a constant function. It also seems
that there is no model of (subsets) of the CIC that doesn't force
parametricity. But do we know whether this is ruled out by the
calculus itself? In other words, can we prove from inside Coq that any
function of type (forall A:Type, A -> bool) is extensively equal to
some constant function?
Any pointers related to that topic would be appreciated.
Thanks,
--
David
- [Coq-Club] Parametricity, David Baelde
- Re: [Coq-Club] Parametricity,
Daniel Schepler
- Re: [Coq-Club] Parametricity,
Adam Chlipala
- Message not available
- Fwd: [Coq-Club] Parametricity, Daniel Schepler
- Re: [Coq-Club] Parametricity,
Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine
- Re: [Coq-Club] Parametricity, David Baelde
- Message not available
- Re: [Coq-Club] Parametricity,
Adam Chlipala
- Re: [Coq-Club] Parametricity,
Daniel Schepler
Archive powered by MhonArc 2.6.16.