The Coq mailing list

[Thorsten Altenkirch <Thorsten.Altenkirch AT nottingham.ac.uk>]

A function and its type are very different concepts even if they have some
superficial syntactic similarity.

Especially for the newcomer this identification is very confusing and
completely misleading. I do think that one should understand type
theoretical concepts from what they mean and not how they look like.

Thorsten

On 16/11/2015 11:50, "Freek Wiedijk" 
<freek AT cs.ru.nl>
 wrote:

>Hi Thorsten,
>
>>What is nice about this conceptual confusion?
>
>That you can get away with it?  That you can simplify your
>syntax and typing rules that way and still have a viable
>logical framework?
>
>The "[x:A]" binder of automath should not be thought of
>as creating a function or function type.  It is "just"
>a notion of binding a variable, to be able to do HOAS.
>
>I'm not saying that the Automath approach to type theory
>is more powerful than the "modern" one (it's basically an
>alternative to LF), but it _is_ simpler and more regular
>and it _does_ work.
>
>Freek





This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee
and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
message in error, please send it back to me, and immediately delete it. 

Please do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this
message or in any attachment.  Any views or opinions expressed by the
author of this email do not necessarily reflect the views of the
University of Nottingham.

This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an
attachment may still contain software viruses which could damage your
computer system, you are advised to perform your own checks. Email
communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored as
permitted by UK legislation.