Results 1 
2 of
2
Constructions, Inductive Types and Strong Normalization
, 1993
"... This thesis contains an investigation of Coquand's Calculus of Constructions, a basic impredicative Type Theory. We review syntactic properties of the calculus, in particular decidability of equality and typechecking, based on the equalityasjudgement presentation. We present a settheoretic ..."
Abstract

Cited by 31 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
This thesis contains an investigation of Coquand's Calculus of Constructions, a basic impredicative Type Theory. We review syntactic properties of the calculus, in particular decidability of equality and typechecking, based on the equalityasjudgement presentation. We present a settheoretic notion of model, CCstructures, and use this to give a new strong normalization proof based on a modification of the realizability interpretation. An extension of the core calculus by inductive types is investigated and we show, using the example of infinite trees, how the realizability semantics and the strong normalization argument can be extended to nonalgebraic inductive types. We emphasize that our interpretation is sound for large eliminations, e.g. allows the definition of sets by recursion. Finally we apply the extended calculus to a nontrivial problem: the formalization of the strong normalization argument for Girard's System F. This formal proof has been developed and checked using the...
Consistency in ALF
, 1994
"... Introduction ALF is the implementation of a logical framework. This implies that ALF is an open system, we can use it for different approaches to Type Theory or even to encode conventional logic. ALF will only check whether our theories typecheck. We are responsible to make sure that the theory is ..."
Abstract

Cited by 1 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Introduction ALF is the implementation of a logical framework. This implies that ALF is an open system, we can use it for different approaches to Type Theory or even to encode conventional logic. ALF will only check whether our theories typecheck. We are responsible to make sure that the theory is consistent  i.e. it is no problem to encode an inconsistent theory like System U in ALF. We could restrict ourselves to the monomorphic set theory as it is described in [NPS90], chapter 19. It is straightforward to implement this theory in ALF and to construct proofobjects by explicit definitions. However, this does not reflect the current usage of ALF, i.e.: ffl We want to be able to introduce new sets by giving a sequence of constructors. ffl We want to define noncanonical constants by pattern matching. Peter Dybjer has developed a notion of schemes to capture inductively defined sets [Dyb91, Dyb94]. Thierry Coq