Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

coq-club - Re: [Coq-Club] Where is the set theory?

coq-club AT inria.fr

Subject: The Coq mailing list

List archive

Re: [Coq-Club] Where is the set theory?


chronological Thread 
  • From: Daniel Schepler <dschepler AT gmail.com>
  • To: Victor Porton <porton AT narod.ru>
  • Cc: Andrej Bauer <andrej.bauer AT andrej.com>, Coq <coq-club AT inria.fr>
  • Subject: Re: [Coq-Club] Where is the set theory?
  • Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2011 14:00:07 -0700


I strongly suspect it has quotient sets, contrary to what Andrej says about impossibility to define a quotient set in type theory.
 
In my ZornsLemma contribution, I construct quotient types using the usual construction as the set of equivalence classes.  Certainly, you need to assume Extensionality_Ensembles to prove the quotient projection map collapses R to strict equality; and you need to use constructive_definite_description to construct induced functions on a quotient type.  So yes, it's probably useless if you need things to be computable at the end.  But if what you're doing is pure mathematical formalization, I don't see any drawbacks to using this construction.
--
Daniel Schepler




Archive powered by MhonArc 2.6.16.

Top of Page