Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

coq-club - Re: [Coq-Club] Question about impredicative Set and Prop

coq-club AT inria.fr

Subject: The Coq mailing list

List archive

Re: [Coq-Club] Question about impredicative Set and Prop


Chronological Thread 
  • From: Burak Ekici <ekcburak AT hotmail.com>
  • To: "coq-club AT inria.fr" <coq-club AT inria.fr>
  • Subject: Re: [Coq-Club] Question about impredicative Set and Prop
  • Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 20:36:21 +0000
  • Accept-language: tr-TR, en-US
  • Authentication-results: mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; spf=None smtp.pra=ekcburak AT hotmail.com; spf=Pass smtp.mailfrom=ekcburak AT hotmail.com; spf=None smtp.helo=postmaster AT BAY004-OMC1S28.hotmail.com
  • Ironport-phdr: 9a23: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
  • Spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
  • Spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99

I seems to me, with a lot of unsure, that your overall point is not
something doable in CIC?

You could perfectly compile Coq with "impredicative-set" option to make
Set impredicative (being aware of inconsistencies with some classical
axioms), build your sigma types (as suggested by Gaetan (item 3rd) and
Dominique) with equality predicates over them. However, you still want
your predicate(s) to be proof-irrelevant. Is that easy? The first thing
came to my mind was adapting "the uniqueness of identity proofs" (<->
K-axiom) but then did not seem doable (maybe it is though, did not try).
You can for sure use standard structural equality of Coq and add one of
these axioms but now, as you've pointed out, this will fly you back in Prop.

I'd be very happy to know if there exists a way making Kristina's wish
implementable?

Thanks!

Best,



Burak.


On 12/12/2016 09:05 PM, Kristina Sojakova wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I am an inexperienced user in Coq and unsure about whether what I am
> trying to do can be even done in it and if so, how. The theory I am
> looking for is the following:
>
> 1) I need an impredicative universe, which, however, is *not*
> proof-irrelevant. Let's call it Set.
> 2) I need to be able to form a \Sigma-type of the form \Sigma x : A.
> f(x) = g(x) : Set. Here A : Set. However, I want the equality type
> "f(x) = g(x)" to be *proof_irrelevant*.
>
> Now I don't know what kind of equality to use. If I use "eq" from the
> Coq standard library then this lands "f(x) = g(x)" in Prop, and that
> is/can be proof-irrelevant, which is good. But of course that doesn't
> work because the whole \Sigma type now lands in Prop too. If on the
> other hand I use some other kind of equality, then it will not be
> proof-irrelevant.
>
> For people who are simultaneously into homotopy type theory, I
> essentially need a propositional truncation of
> "f(x) = g(x)" but I don't know how to make it work in the Coq type
> theory.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Kristina
>




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.18.

Top of Page