Abstract. In this article, we study the prehistory of type theory up to 1910 and its development between Russell and Whitehead’s Principia Mathematica ([71], 1910–1912) and Church’s simply typed λ-calculus of 1940. We first argue that the concept of types has always been present in mathematics, though nobody was incorporating them explicitly as such, before the end of the 19th century. Then we proceed by describing how the logical paradoxes entered the formal systems of Frege, Cantor and Peano concentrating on Frege’s Grundgesetze der Arithmetik for which Russell applied his famous paradox 1 and this led him to introduce the first theory of types, the Ramified Type Theory (rtt). We present rtt formally using the modern notation for type theory and we discuss how Ramsey, Hilbert and Ackermann removed the orders from rtt leading to the simple theory of types stt. We present stt and Church’s own simply typed λ-calculus (λ→C 2) and we finish by comparing rtt, stt and λ→C. §1. Introduction. Nowadays, type theory has many applications and is used in many different disciplines. Even within logic and mathematics, there are many different type systems. They serve several purposes, and are formulated in various ways. But, before 1903 when Russell first introduced

Functions play a central role in type theory, logic and computation. We describe how the notions of functionalisation (the way in which functions can be constructed) and instantiation (the process of applying a function to an argument) have been developed in the last century. We explain how both processes were implemented in Frege's Begriffschrift [17], Russell's Ramified Type Theory [42] and the lambda-calculus (originally introduced by Church [12, 13]) showing that the lambda-calculus misses a crucial aspect of functionalisation. We then pay attention to some special forms of function abstraction that do not exist in the lambda-calculus and we show that various logical constructs (e.g., let expressions and definitions and the use of parameters in mathematics), can be seen as forms of the missing part of functionalisation. Our study of the function concept leads...

In Russell's Ramified Theory of Types rtt, two hierarchical concepts dominate: orders and types. The use of orders has as a consequence that the logic part of rtt is predicative. The concept of order however, is almost dead since Ramsey eliminated it from rtt. This is why we find Church's simple theory of types (which uses the type concept without the order one) at the bottom of the Barendregt Cube rather than rtt. Despite the disappearance of orders which have a strong correlation with predicativity, predicative logic still plays an influential role in Computer Science. An important example is the proof checker Nuprl, which is based on Martin-Löf's Type Theory which uses type universes. Those type universes, and also degrees of expressions in Automath, are closely related to orders. In this paper, we show that orders have not disappeared from modern logic and computer science, rather, orders play a crucial role in understanding the hierarchy of modern systems. In order to achieve our goal, we concentrate on a subsystem of Nuprl. The novelty of our paper lies in: 1) a modest revival of Russell's orders, 1 2) the placing of the historical system rtt underlying the famous Principia Mathematica in a context with a modern system of computer mathematics (Nuprl) and modern type theories (Martin-Löf's type theory and PTSs), and 3) the presentation of a complex type system (Nuprl) as a simple and compact PTS.

This article is a brief review of the type free λ-calculus and its basic rewriting notions, and of the pure type system framework which generalises many type systems. Both the type free λ-calculus and the pure type systems are presented using variable names and de Bruijn indices. Using the presentation of the λ-calculus with de Bruijn indices, we illustrate how a calculus of explicit substitutions can be obtained. In addition, de Bruijn's notation for the λ-calculus is introduced and some of its advantages are outlined.

This paper provides an abstract syntax for a formal language of mathematics. We call our language Weak Type Theory (abbreviated WTT ). WTT will be as faithful as possible to the mathematician 's language yet will be formal and will not allow ambiguities. WTT can be used as an intermediary between the natural language of the mathematician and the formal language of the logician. As far as we know, this is the rst extensive formalization of an abstract syntax of a formal language of mathematics. We compare our work with existing formalizations of languages of mathematics. 1

The Barendregt Cube (introduced in [3]) is a framework in which eight important typed -calculi are described in a uniform way. Moreover, many type systems (like Automath [18], LF [11], ML [17], and system F [10]) can be related to one of these eight systems. Furthermore, via the propositions-as-types principle, many logical systems can be described in the Barendregt Cube as well (see for instance [9]). However, there are important systems (including Automath, LF and ML) that cannot be adequately placed in the Barendregt Cube or in the larger framework of Pure Type Systems. In this paper we add a parameter mechanism to the systems of the Barendregt Cube. In doing so, we obtain a re nement of the Cube. In this re ned Barendregt Cube, systems like Automath, LF, and ML can be described more naturally and accurately than in the original Cube.

This paper gives a complete ( rst-order) formalization of natural deduction for rst-order logic using analytic judgements. Features of this work include a Coq implementation and a library which can be reused for several purposes such as the investigation of the meta-theory of deduction systems and the automation of proof-search of rst-order theorems

The evolution of types and logic in the 20th

The introduction of a general definition of function was key to Frege’s formalisation of logic. Self-application of functions was at the heart of Russell’s paradox. Russell introduced type theory in order to control the application of functions and hence to avoid the paradox. Since, different type systems have been introduced, each allowing different functional power. Despite the extensive use of types in many applications, there remains many “non believers ” in type theory. In this talk, I will briefly review the evolution of types from the time of Euclid (325 B.C.) to the mid of the 20th century. Then, I will introduce de Bruijn’s formulation of functions and types in Automath, his famous system for automating mathematics. De Bruijn’s formulation is a living example which illustrates that while type theory is useful, there are many other considerations that need to be accommodated when attempting to “computerize ” a system. This talk is of interest for anyone