Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

coq-club - Re: [Coq-Club] [Agda] Why dependent type theory?

coq-club AT inria.fr

Subject: The Coq mailing list

List archive

Re: [Coq-Club] [Agda] Why dependent type theory?


Chronological Thread 
  • From: Gabriel Scherer <gabriel.scherer AT gmail.com>
  • To: Martin Escardo <m.escardo AT cs.bham.ac.uk>
  • Cc: James McKinna <james.mckinna AT ed.ac.uk>, coq-club <coq-club AT inria.fr>, agda-list <agda AT lists.chalmers.se>, lean-user <lean-user AT googlegroups.com>
  • Subject: Re: [Coq-Club] [Agda] Why dependent type theory?
  • Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2020 07:34:23 +0100
  • Authentication-results: mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; spf=None smtp.pra=gabriel.scherer AT gmail.com; spf=Pass smtp.mailfrom=gabriel.scherer AT gmail.com; spf=None smtp.helo=postmaster AT mail-qt1-f172.google.com
  • Ironport-phdr: 9a23:mpHirBVykgXb5zxZ4JqSpYF/41bV8LGtZVwlr6E/grcLSJyIuqrYbBWPt8tkgFKBZ4jH8fUM07OQ7/m8HzVZvt3Q7jgrS99laVwssY0uhQsuAcqIWwXQDcXBSGgEJvlET0Jv5HqhMEJYS47UblzWpWCuv3ZJQk2sfQV6Kf7oFYHMks+5y/69+4HJYwVPmTGxfa5+IA+5oAnMucQam5ZuJrszxxfGpnZFevldyH91K16Ugxvz6cC88YJ5/S9Nofwh7clAUav7f6Q8U7NVCSktPn426sP2qxTNVBOD6XQAXGoYlBpIGBXF4wrhXpjtqCv6t/Fy1zecMMbrUL07QzWi76NsSB/1lCcKMiMy/W/LhsBsiq9QvQmsrAJjzYHKfI6VNeJ+fqLDctMcWWpBRdtaWyhYDo+hc4cDE+8NMOBFpIf/ulQOtwOzCgaiBOztyjFGiHz407Ak3es9CgzJxhAsEsgUvXjIsNn4NqEfWv21wqnSyjXDautb1zbn54fTaBAhoO+DXbZtesTM1UYvFx3Kjk+Opoz/IjiY0esNvHKA4Op6VOKglWonpxtqojezxscjlJPJiZwPyl3f+iV5xZw6Jdy8SEJhfdGkF55QujicOoBrQc0iW3lltDgmxrACo5K2fygHxI46yxPed/CLaZWE7xD9WOuXPDx2nmhqeKiliBa36UWgyvPzVs2z0FtSqypKiNjMtnQU2xzK9siLV+Jx/km81TuNyQzf8O5EIUczlarUL54u3KQ8mYYUsUTGBiP2mUP2g7GKdkg85OSk9+Dqbq/lq5KcLYN4lwDzPrg0lsCiA+k0LBACX22B9uS90L3j81f5QLJPjvAunanWqovVJd4apqGnBw9ZyJ0j5Aq/Dzi4ytQXg2MHIUlKeBKClYfpOlXOLOrkAve4hlSgiC1ryOzePr39HpXNKWDOn6vmfbZk8kJT1A4zzc1E6J9PEbEAIPfzWlfru9DCDx85NRa0w+f9B9ln2IMeQzHHPqjMFarIrV6Ors80KOCWaIhd7DO7JuMu7uTiilcyghkXfaCsm5IcLm27SKdIOUKcNFXliM0AHGNChQE+QfbnkhXWXjdZfXe/W+Qn7TE2Eo+8JYjGT4GpxreG2XHoTdVtemlaBwXUQj/TfIKeVqJJMXrKe54zonk/TbGkDrQZ+1SrvQ7+xaBgK7ONqCIdvJPnktNy4r+KzExgxXlPF82Yllq1YSR0k2cPHWFk2al+pQlk1g7G3/En2bpXEttc4/4PWQA/Z8aFk75KTuvqUweERe+nDU68S4z/Uz40R9M1hdQJZhQlFg==

In this nice quote, foundations are considered from the perspective of expressive power:
  What if we find mathematics that *cannot* be formalized with our choice of foundations?
In our experience with proof assistants, the discussion is generally not about expressive power (the possibility to formalize something at all) but about convenience, which in practice determines feasability:
  What if we find mathematics that cannot be formalized *in practice* by our proof assistant, due to our choice of foundations?

It is not obvious to me whether this impact of foundations on practical usability of proof assistants is going to stay, or whether it is a problem of youth that will go away as we develop better assistants. I would rather hope the latter: that we can build proof assistants that are flexible enough to conveniently support a very broad range of mathematics.



Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.18.

Top of Page