Results 1 
7 of
7
A General Formulation of Simultaneous InductiveRecursive Definitions in Type Theory
 Journal of Symbolic Logic
, 1998
"... The first example of a simultaneous inductiverecursive definition in intuitionistic type theory is MartinLöf's universe à la Tarski. A set U0 of codes for small sets is generated inductively at the same time as a function T0 , which maps a code to the corresponding small set, is defined by recursi ..."
Abstract

Cited by 65 (10 self)
 Add to MetaCart
The first example of a simultaneous inductiverecursive definition in intuitionistic type theory is MartinLöf's universe à la Tarski. A set U0 of codes for small sets is generated inductively at the same time as a function T0 , which maps a code to the corresponding small set, is defined by recursion on the way the elements of U0 are generated. In this paper we argue that there is an underlying general notion of simultaneous inductiverecursive definition which is implicit in MartinLöf's intuitionistic type theory. We extend previously given schematic formulations of inductive definitions in type theory to encompass a general notion of simultaneous inductionrecursion. This enables us to give a unified treatment of several interesting constructions including various universe constructions by Palmgren, Griffor, Rathjen, and Setzer and a constructive version of Aczel's Frege structures. Consistency of a restricted version of the extension is shown by constructing a realisability model ...
Indexed InductionRecursion
, 2001
"... We give two nite axiomatizations of indexed inductiverecursive de nitions in intuitionistic type theory. They extend our previous nite axiomatizations of inductiverecursive de nitions of sets to indexed families of sets and encompass virtually all de nitions of sets which have been used in ..."
Abstract

Cited by 44 (16 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We give two nite axiomatizations of indexed inductiverecursive de nitions in intuitionistic type theory. They extend our previous nite axiomatizations of inductiverecursive de nitions of sets to indexed families of sets and encompass virtually all de nitions of sets which have been used in intuitionistic type theory. The more restricted of the two axiomatization arises naturally by considering indexed inductiverecursive de nitions as initial algebras in slice categories, whereas the other admits a more general and convenient form of an introduction rule.
Structured Type Theory
, 1999
"... Introduction We present our implementation AGDA of type theory. We limit ourselves in this presentation to a rather primitive form of type theory (dependent product with a simple notion of sorts) that we extend to structure facility we find in most programming language: let expressions (local defin ..."
Abstract

Cited by 38 (4 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Introduction We present our implementation AGDA of type theory. We limit ourselves in this presentation to a rather primitive form of type theory (dependent product with a simple notion of sorts) that we extend to structure facility we find in most programming language: let expressions (local definition) and a package mechanism. We call this language Structured Type Theory. The first part describes the syntax of the language and an informal description of the typechecking. The second part contains a detailed description of a core language, which is used to implement Strutured Type Theory. We give a realisability semantics, and typechecking rules are proved correct with respect to this semantics. The notion of metavariables is explained at this level. The third part explains how to interpret Structured Type Theory in this core language. The main contributions are: ffl use of explicit substitution to simplify and make
Normalization by evaluation for MartinLöf type theory with one universe
 IN 23RD CONFERENCE ON THE MATHEMATICAL FOUNDATIONS OF PROGRAMMING SEMANTICS, MFPS XXIII, ELECTRONIC NOTES IN THEORETICAL COMPUTER SCIENCE
, 2007
"... ..."
Type Theory with FirstOrder Data Types and SizeChange Termination
, 2004
"... We prove normalization for a dependently typed lambdacalculus extended with firstorder data types and computation schemata for firstorder sizechange terminating recursive functions. Sizechange termination, introduced by C.S. Lee, N.D. Jones and A.M. BenAmram, can be seen as a generalized form ..."
Abstract

Cited by 2 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We prove normalization for a dependently typed lambdacalculus extended with firstorder data types and computation schemata for firstorder sizechange terminating recursive functions. Sizechange termination, introduced by C.S. Lee, N.D. Jones and A.M. BenAmram, can be seen as a generalized form of structural induction, which allows inductive computations and proofs to be defined in a straightforward manner. The language can be used as a proof system—an extension of MartinLöf’s Logical Framework.
LambdaCalcolo E Teoria Dei Tipi
"... form of the knight's tour problem \Is it possible for the kth player to win?" Solution. We have to nd a boolean function which associates to the kth player true if and only if there exists the game tree and it has a node labelled with a state which is winning for the kth player. The problem can ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
form of the knight's tour problem \Is it possible for the kth player to win?" Solution. We have to nd a boolean function which associates to the kth player true if and only if there exists the game tree and it has a node labelled with a state which is winning for the kth player. The problem can be expressed by the following type: (8k < numP layers) fx 2 Boolj (x = true) $ (9t 2 ExpandedT ree(State; gameGraph; initState)) HasWinning(t; k)g where HasWinning(t; k) (9a 2 State) (a InT ree t) & (winning(a; k) = true) 60 The abstract solution A general solution of this problem is then given by the function k:find((expand(gameGraph)) m (leaf(initState)); (s) winning(s; k)) since, supposing t is a tree and b a condition, it is possible to prove that find(t; b) 2 fx 2 Boolj (x = true) $ (9a 2 State) (a InT ree t) & (b(a) = true)g 61 What should be avoided If you want to avoid classical logic we should not add ... Extensional powerset U(x) prop [x : S] fUg 2 P(S) x"U $ x"V [x : S] fUg = fV g 2 P(S) Extensional nite powerset U(x) prop [x : S] Fin(U) fUg 2 P!(S) x"U $ x"V [x : S] fUg = fV g 2 P!(S) where Fin(U) (9n 2 Nat)(9f : Nn ! S) U Im[f ] Extensional quotient set a 2 A [a] R 2 A=R [a] R = [b] R 2 A=R R(a; b) true Extensional couple set W 1 ; W 2 2 fU; V g x"W 1 $ x"W 2 [x : S] W 1 = W 2 2 fU; V g 62 The Powerset Constructor The notion of Subset Let S be a set, then U is a subset of S if U(x) prop [x : S] or equivalently U : (x : S) prop Thus . . .
An Implementation of Type:Type
, 2000
"... We present a denotational semantics of a type system with dependent types, where types are interpreted as finitary projections. We prove then the correctness of a typechecking algorithm w.r.t. this semantics. In this way, we can justify some simple optimisation in this algorithm. We then sketch h ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
We present a denotational semantics of a type system with dependent types, where types are interpreted as finitary projections. We prove then the correctness of a typechecking algorithm w.r.t. this semantics. In this way, we can justify some simple optimisation in this algorithm. We then sketch how to extend this semantics to allow a simple record mechanism with manifest fields.