\documentclass[report]{article}
+\usepackage{etex}
%% Narrow margins
-\usepackage{fullpage}
+% \usepackage{fullpage}
%% Bibtex
\usepackage{natbib}
%% Links
\usepackage{hyperref}
+%% Frames
+\usepackage{framed}
+
+%% Symbols
+\usepackage[fleqn]{amsmath}
+\usepackage{stmaryrd} %llbracket
+
+%% Proof trees
+\usepackage{bussproofs}
+
+%% Diagrams
+\usepackage[all]{xy}
+
+%% Quotations
+\usepackage{epigraph}
+
+%% Images
+\usepackage{graphicx}
+
+%% Subfigure
+\usepackage{subcaption}
+
+\usepackage{verbatim}
+
+%% diagrams
+\usepackage{tikz}
+\usetikzlibrary{shapes,arrows,positioning}
+% \usepackage{tikz-cd}
+% \usepackage{pgfplots}
+
+
%% -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
%% Commands for Agda
\usepackage[english]{babel}
\renewcommand{\AgdaKeywordFontStyle}[1]{\ensuremath{\mathrm{\underline{#1}}}}
\renewcommand{\AgdaFunction}[1]{\textbf{\textcolor{AgdaFunction}{#1}}}
\renewcommand{\AgdaField}{\AgdaFunction}
-\definecolor{AgdaBound} {HTML}{000000}
+% \definecolor{AgdaBound} {HTML}{000000}
+\definecolor{AgdaHole} {HTML} {FFFF33}
\DeclareUnicodeCharacter{9665}{\ensuremath{\lhd}}
+\DeclareUnicodeCharacter{964}{\ensuremath{\tau}}
+\DeclareUnicodeCharacter{963}{\ensuremath{\sigma}}
+\DeclareUnicodeCharacter{915}{\ensuremath{\Gamma}}
+\DeclareUnicodeCharacter{8799}{\ensuremath{\stackrel{?}{=}}}
+\DeclareUnicodeCharacter{9655}{\ensuremath{\rhd}}
+
+\renewenvironment{code}%
+{\noindent\ignorespaces\advance\leftskip\mathindent\AgdaCodeStyle\pboxed\small}%
+{\endpboxed\par\noindent%
+\ignorespacesafterend\small}
+
%% -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
%% Commands
\newcommand{\mysyn}{\AgdaKeyword}
\newcommand{\mytyc}{\AgdaDatatype}
-\newcommand{\myind}{\AgdaInductiveConstructor}
+\newcommand{\mydc}{\AgdaInductiveConstructor}
\newcommand{\myfld}{\AgdaField}
\newcommand{\myfun}{\AgdaFunction}
-\newcommand{\myb}{\AgdaBound}
+\newcommand{\myb}[1]{\AgdaBound{$#1$}}
\newcommand{\myfield}{\AgdaField}
+\newcommand{\myind}{\AgdaIndent}
+\newcommand{\mykant}{\textsc{Kant}}
+\newcommand{\mysynel}[1]{#1}
+\newcommand{\myse}{\mysynel}
+\newcommand{\mytmsyn}{\mysynel{term}}
+\newcommand{\mysp}{\ }
+\newcommand{\myabs}[2]{\mydc{$\lambda$} #1 \mathrel{\mydc{$\mapsto$}} #2}
+\newcommand{\myappsp}{\hspace{0.07cm}}
+\newcommand{\myapp}[2]{#1 \myappsp #2}
+\newcommand{\mysynsep}{\ \ |\ \ }
+\newcommand{\myITE}[3]{\myfun{If}\, #1\, \myfun{Then}\, #2\, \myfun{Else}\, #3}
+
+\FrameSep0.2cm
+\newcommand{\mydesc}[3]{
+ \noindent
+ \mbox{
+ \vspace{0.1cm}
+ \parbox{\textwidth}{
+ {\small
+ \hfill \textbf{#1} $#2$
+ \framebox[\textwidth]{
+ \parbox{\textwidth}{
+ \vspace{0.1cm}
+ \centering{
+ #3
+ }
+ \vspace{0.1cm}
+ }
+ }
+ }
+ }
+ }
+}
+
+\newcommand{\mytmt}{\mysynel{t}}
+\newcommand{\mytmm}{\mysynel{m}}
+\newcommand{\mytmn}{\mysynel{n}}
+\newcommand{\myred}{\leadsto}
+\newcommand{\mysub}[3]{#1[#2 / #3]}
+\newcommand{\mytysyn}{\mysynel{type}}
+\newcommand{\mybasetys}{K}
+\newcommand{\mybasety}[1]{B_{#1}}
+\newcommand{\mytya}{\myse{A}}
+\newcommand{\mytyb}{\myse{B}}
+\newcommand{\mytycc}{\myse{C}}
+\newcommand{\myarr}{\mathrel{\textcolor{AgdaDatatype}{\to}}}
+\newcommand{\myprod}{\mathrel{\textcolor{AgdaDatatype}{\times}}}
+\newcommand{\myctx}{\Gamma}
+\newcommand{\myvalid}[1]{#1 \vdash \underline{\mathrm{valid}}}
+\newcommand{\myjudd}[3]{#1 \vdash #2 : #3}
+\newcommand{\myjud}[2]{\myjudd{\myctx}{#1}{#2}}
+\newcommand{\myabss}[3]{\mydc{$\lambda$} #1 {:} #2 \mathrel{\mydc{$\mapsto$}} #3}
+\newcommand{\mytt}{\mydc{$\langle\rangle$}}
+\newcommand{\myunit}{\mytyc{Unit}}
+\newcommand{\mypair}[2]{\mathopen{\mydc{$\langle$}}#1\mathpunct{\mydc{,}} #2\mathclose{\mydc{$\rangle$}}}
+\newcommand{\myfst}{\myfld{fst}}
+\newcommand{\mysnd}{\myfld{snd}}
+\newcommand{\myconst}{\myse{c}}
+\newcommand{\myemptyctx}{\cdot}
+\newcommand{\myhole}{\AgdaHole}
+\newcommand{\myfix}[3]{\mysyn{fix} \myappsp #1 {:} #2 \mapsto #3}
+\newcommand{\mysum}{\mathbin{\textcolor{AgdaDatatype}{+}}}
+\newcommand{\myleft}[1]{\mydc{left}_{#1}}
+\newcommand{\myright}[1]{\mydc{right}_{#1}}
+\newcommand{\myempty}{\mytyc{Empty}}
+\newcommand{\mycase}[2]{\mathopen{\myfun{[}}#1\mathpunct{\myfun{,}} #2 \mathclose{\myfun{]}}}
+\newcommand{\myabsurd}[1]{\myfun{absurd}_{#1}}
+\newcommand{\myarg}{\_}
+\newcommand{\myderivsp}{\vspace{0.3cm}}
+\newcommand{\mytyp}{\mytyc{Type}}
+\newcommand{\myneg}{\myfun{$\neg$}}
+\newcommand{\myar}{\,}
+\newcommand{\mybool}{\mytyc{Bool}}
+\newcommand{\mytrue}{\mydc{true}}
+\newcommand{\myfalse}{\mydc{false}}
+\newcommand{\myitee}[5]{\myfun{if}\,#1 / {#2.#3}\,\myfun{then}\,#4\,\myfun{else}\,#5}
+\newcommand{\mynat}{\mytyc{$\mathbb{N}$}}
+\newcommand{\myrat}{\mytyc{$\mathbb{R}$}}
+\newcommand{\myite}[3]{\myfun{if}\,#1\,\myfun{then}\,#2\,\myfun{else}\,#3}
+\newcommand{\myfora}[3]{(#1 {:} #2) \myarr #3}
+\newcommand{\myexi}[3]{(#1 {:} #2) \myprod #3}
+\newcommand{\mypairr}[4]{\mathopen{\mydc{$\langle$}}#1\mathpunct{\mydc{,}} #4\mathclose{\mydc{$\rangle$}}_{#2{.}#3}}
+\newcommand{\mylist}{\mytyc{List}}
+\newcommand{\mynil}[1]{\mydc{[]}_{#1}}
+\newcommand{\mycons}{\mathbin{\mydc{∷}}}
+\newcommand{\myfoldr}{\myfun{foldr}}
+\newcommand{\myw}[3]{\myapp{\myapp{\mytyc{W}}{(#1 {:} #2)}}{#3}}
+\newcommand{\mynodee}{\mathbin{\mydc{$\lhd$}}}
+\newcommand{\mynode}[2]{\mynodee_{#1.#2}}
+\newcommand{\myrec}[4]{\myfun{rec}\,#1 / {#2.#3}\,\myfun{with}\,#4}
+\newcommand{\mylub}{\sqcup}
+\newcommand{\mydefeq}{\cong}
+\newcommand{\myrefl}{\mydc{refl}}
+\newcommand{\mypeq}[1]{\mathrel{\mytyc{=}_{#1}}}
+\newcommand{\myjeqq}{\myfun{=-elim}}
+\newcommand{\myjeq}[3]{\myapp{\myapp{\myapp{\myjeqq}{#1}}{#2}}{#3}}
+\newcommand{\mysubst}{\myfun{subst}}
+\newcommand{\myprsyn}{\myse{prop}}
+\newcommand{\myprdec}[1]{\mathopen{\mytyc{$\llbracket$}} #1 \mathopen{\mytyc{$\rrbracket$}}}
+\newcommand{\myand}{\mathrel{\mytyc{$\wedge$}}}
+\newcommand{\mybigand}{\mathrel{\mytyc{$\bigwedge$}}}
+\newcommand{\myprfora}[3]{\forall #1 {:} #2. #3}
+\newcommand{\myimpl}{\mathrel{\mytyc{$\Rightarrow$}}}
+\newcommand{\mybot}{\mytyc{$\bot$}}
+\newcommand{\mytop}{\mytyc{$\top$}}
+\newcommand{\mycoe}{\myfun{coe}}
+\newcommand{\mycoee}[4]{\myapp{\myapp{\myapp{\myapp{\mycoe}{#1}}{#2}}{#3}}{#4}}
+\newcommand{\mycoh}{\myfun{coh}}
+\newcommand{\mycohh}[4]{\myapp{\myapp{\myapp{\myapp{\mycoh}{#1}}{#2}}{#3}}{#4}}
+\newcommand{\myjm}[4]{(#1 {:} #2) \mathrel{\mytyc{=}} (#3 {:} #4)}
+\newcommand{\myeq}{\mathrel{\mytyc{=}}}
+\newcommand{\myprop}{\mytyc{Prop}}
+\newcommand{\mytmup}{\mytmsyn\uparrow}
+\newcommand{\mydefs}{\Delta}
+\newcommand{\mynf}{\Downarrow}
+\newcommand{\myinff}[3]{#1 \vdash #2 \Rightarrow #3}
+\newcommand{\myinf}[2]{\myinff{\myctx}{#1}{#2}}
+\newcommand{\mychkk}[3]{#1 \vdash #2 \Leftarrow #3}
+\newcommand{\mychk}[2]{\mychkk{\myctx}{#1}{#2}}
+\newcommand{\myann}[2]{#1 : #2}
+\newcommand{\mydeclsyn}{\myse{decl}}
+\newcommand{\myval}[3]{#1 : #2 \mapsto #3}
+\newcommand{\mypost}[2]{\mysyn{abstract}\ #1 : #2}
+\newcommand{\myadt}[4]{\mysyn{data}\ #1 #2\ \mysyn{where}\ #3\{ #4 \}}
+\newcommand{\myreco}[4]{\mysyn{record}\ #1 #2\ \mysyn{where}\ \{ #4 \}}
+\newcommand{\myelabt}{\vdash}
+\newcommand{\myelabf}{\rhd}
+\newcommand{\myelab}[2]{\myctx \myelabt #1 \myelabf #2}
+\newcommand{\mytele}{\Delta}
+\newcommand{\mytelee}{\delta}
+\newcommand{\mydcctx}{\Gamma}
+\newcommand{\mynamesyn}{\myse{name}}
+\newcommand{\myvec}{\overrightarrow}
+\newcommand{\mymeta}{\textsc}
+\newcommand{\myhyps}{\mymeta{hyps}}
+\newcommand{\mycc}{;}
+\newcommand{\myemptytele}{\cdot}
+\newcommand{\mymetagoes}{\Longrightarrow}
+% \newcommand{\mytesctx}{\
+\newcommand{\mytelesyn}{\myse{telescope}}
+\newcommand{\myrecs}{\mymeta{recs}}
+\newcommand{\myle}{\mathrel{\lcfun{$\le$}}}
+\newcommand{\mylet}{\mysyn{let}}
+\newcommand{\myhead}{\mymeta{head}}
+\newcommand{\mytake}{\mymeta{take}}
+\newcommand{\myix}{\mymeta{ix}}
+\newcommand{\myapply}{\mymeta{apply}}
+\newcommand{\mydataty}{\mymeta{datatype}}
+\newcommand{\myisreco}{\mymeta{record}}
+\newcommand{\mydcsep}{\ |\ }
+\newcommand{\mytree}{\mytyc{Tree}}
+\newcommand{\myproj}[1]{\myfun{$\pi_{#1}$}}
+\newcommand{\mysigma}{\mytyc{$\Sigma$}}
+
%% -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-\title{\textsc{Kant}: Implementing Observational Equality}
-% TODO remove double @ if we get rid of lhs2TeX
+\title{\mykant: Implementing Observational Equality}
\author{Francesco Mazzoli \href{mailto:fm2209@ic.ac.uk}{\nolinkurl{<fm2209@ic.ac.uk>}}}
\date{June 2013}
+ \iffalse
+ \begin{code}
+ module thesis where
+ \end{code}
+ \fi
+
\begin{document}
-\iffalse
-\begin{code}
-module thesis where
-open import Level
-\end{code}
-\fi
+\begin{titlepage}
+ \centering
-\maketitle
+ \maketitle
+ \thispagestyle{empty}
+
+ \begin{minipage}{0.4\textwidth}
+ \begin{flushleft} \large
+ \emph{Supervisor:}\\
+ Dr. Steffen \textsc{van Backel}
+ \end{flushleft}
+\end{minipage}
+\begin{minipage}{0.4\textwidth}
+ \begin{flushright} \large
+ \emph{Co-marker:} \\
+ Dr. Philippa \textsc{Gardner}
+ \end{flushright}
+\end{minipage}
+
+\end{titlepage}
\begin{abstract}
The marriage between programming and logic has been a very fertile one. In
particular, since the simply typed lambda calculus (STLC), a number of type
systems have been devised with increasing expressive power.
- Section \ref{sec:types} will give a very brief overview of STLC, and then
- illustrate how it can be interpreted as a natural deduction system. Section
- \ref{sec:itt} will introduce Inutitionistic Type Theory (ITT), which expands
- on this concept, employing a more expressive logic. The exposition is quite
- dense since there is a lot of material to cover; for a more complete treatment
- of the material the reader can refer to \citep{Thompson1991, Pierce2002}.
- Section \ref{sec:equality} will explain why equality has always been a tricky
- business in these theories, and talk about the various attempts that have been
- made to make the situation better. One interesting development has recently
- emerged: Observational Type theory.
-
- Section \ref{sec:practical} will describe common extensions found in the
- systems currently in use. Finally, section \ref{sec:kant} will describe a
- system developed by the author that implements a core calculus based on the
- principles described.
+ Among this systems, Inutitionistic Type Theory (ITT) has been a very
+ popular framework for theorem provers and programming languages.
+ However, equality has always been a tricky business in ITT and related
+ theories.
+
+ In these thesis we will explain why this is the case, and present
+ Observational Type Theory (OTT), a solution to some of the problems
+ with equality. We then describe $\mykant$, a theorem prover featuring
+ OTT in a setting more close to the one found in current systems.
+ Having implemented part of $\mykant$ as a Haskell program, we describe
+ some of the implementation issues faced.
+\end{abstract}
+
+\clearpage
+
+\renewcommand{\abstractname}{Acknowledgements}
+\begin{abstract}
+ I would like to thank Steffen van Backel, my supervisor, who was brave
+ enough to believe in my project and who provided much advice and
+ support.
+
+ I would also like to thank the Haskell and Agda community on
+ \texttt{IRC}, which guided me through the strange world of types; and
+ in particular Andrea Vezzosi and James Deikun, with whom I entertained
+ countless insightful discussions in the past year. Andrea suggested
+ Observational Type Theory as a topic of study: this thesis would not
+ exist without him. Before them, Tony Fields introduced me to Haskell,
+ unknowingly filling most of my free time from that time on.
+
+ Finally, much of the work stems from the research of Conor McBride,
+ who answered many of my doubts through these months. I also owe him
+ the colours.
\end{abstract}
+\clearpage
+
\tableofcontents
+\clearpage
+
\section{Simple and not-so-simple types}
\label{sec:types}
-\section{Intuitionistic Type Theory and dependent types}
+\subsection{The untyped $\lambda$-calculus}
+
+Along with Turing's machines, the earliest attempts to formalise computation
+lead to the $\lambda$-calculus \citep{Church1936}. This early programming
+language encodes computation with a minimal syntax and no `data' in the
+traditional sense, but just functions. Here we give a brief overview of the
+language, which will give the chance to introduce concepts central to the
+analysis of all the following calculi. The exposition follows the one found in
+chapter 5 of \cite{Queinnec2003}.
+
+The syntax of $\lambda$-terms consists of three things: variables, abstractions,
+and applications:
+
+\mydesc{syntax}{ }{
+ $
+ \begin{array}{r@{\ }c@{\ }l}
+ \mytmsyn & ::= & \myb{x} \mysynsep \myabs{\myb{x}}{\mytmsyn} \mysynsep (\myapp{\mytmsyn}{\mytmsyn}) \\
+ x & \in & \text{Some enumerable set of symbols}
+ \end{array}
+ $
+}
+
+Parenthesis will be omitted in the usual way:
+$\myapp{\myapp{\mytmt}{\mytmm}}{\mytmn} =
+\myapp{(\myapp{\mytmt}{\mytmm})}{\mytmn}$.
+
+Abstractions roughly corresponds to functions, and their semantics is more
+formally explained by the $\beta$-reduction rule:
+
+\mydesc{reduction:}{\mytmsyn \myred \mytmsyn}{
+ $
+ \begin{array}{l}
+ \myapp{(\myabs{\myb{x}}{\mytmm})}{\mytmn} \myred \mysub{\mytmm}{\myb{x}}{\mytmn}\text{, where} \\
+ \myind{2}
+ \begin{array}{l@{\ }c@{\ }l}
+ \mysub{\myb{x}}{\myb{x}}{\mytmn} & = & \mytmn \\
+ \mysub{\myb{y}}{\myb{x}}{\mytmn} & = & y\text{, with } \myb{x} \neq y \\
+ \mysub{(\myapp{\mytmt}{\mytmm})}{\myb{x}}{\mytmn} & = & (\myapp{\mysub{\mytmt}{\myb{x}}{\mytmn}}{\mysub{\mytmm}{\myb{x}}{\mytmn}}) \\
+ \mysub{(\myabs{\myb{x}}{\mytmm})}{\myb{x}}{\mytmn} & = & \myabs{\myb{x}}{\mytmm} \\
+ \mysub{(\myabs{\myb{y}}{\mytmm})}{\myb{x}}{\mytmn} & = & \myabs{\myb{z}}{\mysub{\mysub{\mytmm}{\myb{y}}{\myb{z}}}{\myb{x}}{\mytmn}}, \\
+ \multicolumn{3}{l}{\myind{2} \text{with $\myb{x} \neq \myb{y}$ and $\myb{z}$ not free in $\myapp{\mytmm}{\mytmn}$}}
+ \end{array}
+ \end{array}
+ $
+}
+
+The care required during substituting variables for terms is required to avoid
+name capturing. We will use substitution in the future for other name-binding
+constructs assuming similar precautions.
+
+These few elements are of remarkable expressiveness, and in fact Turing
+complete. As a corollary, we must be able to devise a term that reduces forever
+(`loops' in imperative terms):
+{\small
+\[
+ (\myapp{\omega}{\omega}) \myred (\myapp{\omega}{\omega}) \myred \cdots \text{, with $\omega = \myabs{x}{\myapp{x}{x}}$}
+\]
+}
+
+A \emph{redex} is a term that can be reduced. In the untyped $\lambda$-calculus
+this will be the case for an application in which the first term is an
+abstraction, but in general we call aterm reducible if it appears to the left of
+a reduction rule. When a term contains no redexes it's said to be in
+\emph{normal form}. Given the observation above, not all terms reduce to a
+normal forms: we call the ones that do \emph{normalising}, and the ones that
+don't \emph{non-normalising}.
+
+The reduction rule presented is not syntax directed, but \emph{evaluation
+ strategies} can be employed to reduce term systematically. Common evaluation
+strategies include \emph{call by value} (or \emph{strict}), where arguments of
+abstractions are reduced before being applied to the abstraction; and conversely
+\emph{call by name} (or \emph{lazy}), where we reduce only when we need to do so
+to proceed---in other words when we have an application where the function is
+still not a $\lambda$. In both these reduction strategies we never reduce under
+an abstraction: for this reason a weaker form of normalisation is used, where
+both abstractions and normal forms are said to be in \emph{weak head normal
+ form}.
+
+\subsection{The simply typed $\lambda$-calculus}
+
+A convenient way to `discipline' and reason about $\lambda$-terms is to assign
+\emph{types} to them, and then check that the terms that we are forming make
+sense given our typing rules \citep{Curry1934}. The first most basic instance
+of this idea takes the name of \emph{simply typed $\lambda$ calculus}, whose
+rules are shown in figure \ref{fig:stlc}.
+
+Our types contain a set of \emph{type variables} $\Phi$, which might
+correspond to some `primitive' types; and $\myarr$, the type former for
+`arrow' types, the types of functions. The language is explicitly
+typed: when we bring a variable into scope with an abstraction, we
+declare its type. Reduction is unchanged from the untyped
+$\lambda$-calculus.
+
+\begin{figure}[t]
+ \mydesc{syntax}{ }{
+ $
+ \begin{array}{r@{\ }c@{\ }l}
+ \mytmsyn & ::= & \myb{x} \mysynsep \myabss{\myb{x}}{\mytysyn}{\mytmsyn} \mysynsep
+ (\myapp{\mytmsyn}{\mytmsyn}) \\
+ \mytysyn & ::= & \myse{\phi} \mysynsep \mytysyn \myarr \mytysyn \mysynsep \\
+ \myb{x} & \in & \text{Some enumerable set of symbols} \\
+ \myse{\phi} & \in & \Phi
+ \end{array}
+ $
+ }
+
+ \mydesc{typing:}{\myjud{\mytmsyn}{\mytysyn}}{
+ \begin{tabular}{ccc}
+ \AxiomC{$\myctx(x) = A$}
+ \UnaryInfC{$\myjud{\myb{x}}{A}$}
+ \DisplayProof
+ &
+ \AxiomC{$\myjudd{\myctx;\myb{x} : A}{\mytmt}{\mytyb}$}
+ \UnaryInfC{$\myjud{\myabss{x}{A}{\mytmt}}{\mytyb}$}
+ \DisplayProof
+ &
+ \AxiomC{$\myjud{\mytmm}{\mytya \myarr \mytyb}$}
+ \AxiomC{$\myjud{\mytmn}{\mytya}$}
+ \BinaryInfC{$\myjud{\myapp{\mytmm}{\mytmn}}{\mytyb}$}
+ \DisplayProof
+ \end{tabular}
+}
+ \caption{Syntax and typing rules for the STLC. Reduction is unchanged from
+ the untyped $\lambda$-calculus.}
+ \label{fig:stlc}
+\end{figure}
+
+In the typing rules, a context $\myctx$ is used to store the types of bound
+variables: $\myctx; \myb{x} : \mytya$ adds a variable to the context and
+$\myctx(x)$ returns the type of the rightmost occurrence of $x$.
+
+This typing system takes the name of `simply typed lambda calculus' (STLC), and
+enjoys a number of properties. Two of them are expected in most type systems
+\citep{Pierce2002}:
+\begin{description}
+\item[Progress] A well-typed term is not stuck---it is either a variable, or its
+ constructor does not appear on the left of the $\myred$ relation (currently
+ only $\lambda$), or it can take a step according to the evaluation rules.
+\item[Preservation] If a well-typed term takes a step of evaluation, then the
+ resulting term is also well-typed, and preserves the previous type. Also
+ known as \emph{subject reduction}.
+\end{description}
+
+However, STLC buys us much more: every well-typed term is normalising
+\citep{Tait1967}. It is easy to see that we can't fill the blanks if we want to
+give types to the non-normalising term shown before:
+\begin{equation*}
+ \myapp{(\myabss{\myb{x}}{\myhole{?}}{\myapp{\myb{x}}{\myb{x}}})}{(\myabss{\myb{x}}{\myhole{?}}{\myapp{\myb{x}}{\myb{x}}})}
+\end{equation*}
+
+This makes the STLC Turing incomplete. We can recover the ability to loop by
+adding a combinator that recurses:
+
+\noindent
+\begin{minipage}{0.5\textwidth}
+\mydesc{syntax}{ } {
+ $ \mytmsyn ::= \cdots b \mysynsep \myfix{\myb{x}}{\mytysyn}{\mytmsyn} $
+ \vspace{0.4cm}
+}
+\end{minipage}
+\begin{minipage}{0.5\textwidth}
+\mydesc{typing:}{\myjud{\mytmsyn}{\mytysyn}} {
+ \AxiomC{$\myjudd{\myctx; \myb{x} : \mytya}{\mytmt}{\mytya}$}
+ \UnaryInfC{$\myjud{\myfix{\myb{x}}{\mytya}{\mytmt}}{\mytya}$}
+ \DisplayProof
+}
+\end{minipage}
+
+\mydesc{reduction:}{\myjud{\mytmsyn}{\mytmsyn}}{
+ $ \myfix{\myb{x}}{\mytya}{\mytmt} \myred \mysub{\mytmt}{\myb{x}}{(\myfix{\myb{x}}{\mytya}{\mytmt})}$
+}
+
+This will deprive us of normalisation, which is a particularly bad thing if we
+want to use the STLC as described in the next section.
+
+\subsection{The Curry-Howard correspondence}
+
+It turns out that the STLC can be seen a natural deduction system for
+intuitionistic propositional logic. Terms are proofs, and their types are the
+propositions they prove. This remarkable fact is known as the Curry-Howard
+correspondence, or isomorphism.
+
+The arrow ($\myarr$) type corresponds to implication. If we wish to prove that
+that $(\mytya \myarr \mytyb) \myarr (\mytyb \myarr \mytycc) \myarr (\mytya
+\myarr \mytycc)$, all we need to do is to devise a $\lambda$-term that has the
+correct type:
+{\small\[
+ \myabss{\myb{f}}{(\mytya \myarr \mytyb)}{\myabss{\myb{g}}{(\mytyb \myarr \mytycc)}{\myabss{\myb{x}}{\mytya}{\myapp{\myb{g}}{(\myapp{\myb{f}}{\myb{x}})}}}}
+\]}
+That is, function composition. Going beyond arrow types, we can extend our bare
+lambda calculus with useful types to represent other logical constructs, as
+shown in figure \ref{fig:natded}.
+
+\begin{figure}[t]
+\mydesc{syntax}{ }{
+ $
+ \begin{array}{r@{\ }c@{\ }l}
+ \mytmsyn & ::= & \cdots \\
+ & | & \mytt \mysynsep \myapp{\myabsurd{\mytysyn}}{\mytmsyn} \\
+ & | & \myapp{\myleft{\mytysyn}}{\mytmsyn} \mysynsep
+ \myapp{\myright{\mytysyn}}{\mytmsyn} \mysynsep
+ \myapp{\mycase{\mytmsyn}{\mytmsyn}}{\mytmsyn} \\
+ & | & \mypair{\mytmsyn}{\mytmsyn} \mysynsep
+ \myapp{\myfst}{\mytmsyn} \mysynsep \myapp{\mysnd}{\mytmsyn} \\
+ \mytysyn & ::= & \cdots \mysynsep \myunit \mysynsep \myempty \mysynsep \mytmsyn \mysum \mytmsyn \mysynsep \mytysyn \myprod \mytysyn
+ \end{array}
+ $
+}
+
+\mydesc{reduction:}{\mytmsyn \myred \mytmsyn}{
+ \begin{tabular}{cc}
+ $
+ \begin{array}{l@{ }l@{\ }c@{\ }l}
+ \myapp{\mycase{\mytmm}{\mytmn}}{(\myapp{\myleft{\mytya} &}{\mytmt})} & \myred &
+ \myapp{\mytmm}{\mytmt} \\
+ \myapp{\mycase{\mytmm}{\mytmn}}{(\myapp{\myright{\mytya} &}{\mytmt})} & \myred &
+ \myapp{\mytmn}{\mytmt}
+ \end{array}
+ $
+ &
+ $
+ \begin{array}{l@{ }l@{\ }c@{\ }l}
+ \myapp{\myfst &}{\mypair{\mytmm}{\mytmn}} & \myred & \mytmm \\
+ \myapp{\mysnd &}{\mypair{\mytmm}{\mytmn}} & \myred & \mytmn
+ \end{array}
+ $
+ \end{tabular}
+}
+
+\mydesc{typing:}{\myjud{\mytmsyn}{\mytysyn}}{
+ \begin{tabular}{cc}
+ \AxiomC{\phantom{$\myjud{\mytmt}{\myempty}$}}
+ \UnaryInfC{$\myjud{\mytt}{\myunit}$}
+ \DisplayProof
+ &
+ \AxiomC{$\myjud{\mytmt}{\myempty}$}
+ \UnaryInfC{$\myjud{\myapp{\myabsurd{\mytya}}{\mytmt}}{\mytya}$}
+ \DisplayProof
+ \end{tabular}
+
+ \myderivsp
+
+ \begin{tabular}{cc}
+ \AxiomC{$\myjud{\mytmt}{\mytya}$}
+ \UnaryInfC{$\myjud{\myapp{\myleft{\mytyb}}{\mytmt}}{\mytya \mysum \mytyb}$}
+ \DisplayProof
+ &
+ \AxiomC{$\myjud{\mytmt}{\mytyb}$}
+ \UnaryInfC{$\myjud{\myapp{\myright{\mytya}}{\mytmt}}{\mytya \mysum \mytyb}$}
+ \DisplayProof
+
+ \end{tabular}
+
+ \myderivsp
+
+ \begin{tabular}{cc}
+ \AxiomC{$\myjud{\mytmm}{\mytya \myarr \mytyb}$}
+ \AxiomC{$\myjud{\mytmn}{\mytya \myarr \mytycc}$}
+ \AxiomC{$\myjud{\mytmt}{\mytya \mysum \mytyb}$}
+ \TrinaryInfC{$\myjud{\myapp{\mycase{\mytmm}{\mytmn}}{\mytmt}}{\mytycc}$}
+ \DisplayProof
+ \end{tabular}
+
+ \myderivsp
+
+ \begin{tabular}{ccc}
+ \AxiomC{$\myjud{\mytmm}{\mytya}$}
+ \AxiomC{$\myjud{\mytmn}{\mytyb}$}
+ \BinaryInfC{$\myjud{\mypair{\mytmm}{\mytmn}}{\mytya \myprod \mytyb}$}
+ \DisplayProof
+ &
+ \AxiomC{$\myjud{\mytmt}{\mytya \myprod \mytyb}$}
+ \UnaryInfC{$\myjud{\myapp{\myfst}{\mytmt}}{\mytya}$}
+ \DisplayProof
+ &
+ \AxiomC{$\myjud{\mytmt}{\mytya \myprod \mytyb}$}
+ \UnaryInfC{$\myjud{\myapp{\mysnd}{\mytmt}}{\mytyb}$}
+ \DisplayProof
+ \end{tabular}
+}
+\caption{Rules for the extendend STLC. Only the new features are shown, all the
+ rules and syntax for the STLC apply here too.}
+ \label{fig:natded}
+\end{figure}
+
+Tagged unions (or sums, or coproducts---$\mysum$ here, \texttt{Either}
+in Haskell) correspond to disjunctions, and dually tuples (or pairs, or
+products---$\myprod$ here, tuples in Haskell) correspond to
+conjunctions. This is apparent looking at the ways to construct and
+destruct the values inhabiting those types: for $\mysum$ $\myleft{ }$
+and $\myright{ }$ correspond to $\vee$ introduction, and
+$\mycase{\myarg}{\myarg}$ to $\vee$ elimination; for $\myprod$
+$\mypair{\myarg}{\myarg}$ corresponds to $\wedge$ introduction, $\myfst$
+and $\mysnd$ to $\wedge$ elimination.
+
+The trivial type $\myunit$ corresponds to the logical $\top$, and dually
+$\myempty$ corresponds to the logical $\bot$. $\myunit$ has one introduction
+rule ($\mytt$), and thus one inhabitant; and no eliminators. $\myempty$ has no
+introduction rules, and thus no inhabitants; and one eliminator ($\myabsurd{
+}$), corresponding to the logical \emph{ex falso quodlibet}.
+
+With these rules, our STLC now looks remarkably similar in power and use to the
+natural deduction we already know. $\myneg \mytya$ can be expressed as $\mytya
+\myarr \myempty$. However, there is an important omission: there is no term of
+the type $\mytya \mysum \myneg \mytya$ (excluded middle), or equivalently
+$\myneg \myneg \mytya \myarr \mytya$ (double negation), or indeed any term with
+a type equivalent to those.
+
+This has a considerable effect on our logic and it's no coincidence, since there
+is no obvious computational behaviour for laws like the excluded middle.
+Theories of this kind are called \emph{intuitionistic}, or \emph{constructive},
+and all the systems analysed will have this characteristic since they build on
+the foundation of the STLC\footnote{There is research to give computational
+ behaviour to classical logic, but I will not touch those subjects.}.
+
+As in logic, if we want to keep our system consistent, we must make sure that no
+closed terms (in other words terms not under a $\lambda$) inhabit $\myempty$.
+The variant of STLC presented here is indeed
+consistent, a result that follows from the fact that it is
+normalising. % TODO explain
+Going back to our $\mysyn{fix}$ combinator, it is easy to see how it ruins our
+desire for consistency. The following term works for every type $\mytya$,
+including bottom:
+{\small\[
+(\myfix{\myb{x}}{\mytya}{\myb{x}}) : \mytya
+\]}
+
+\subsection{Inductive data}
+\label{sec:ind-data}
+
+To make the STLC more useful as a programming language or reasoning tool it is
+common to include (or let the user define) inductive data types. These comprise
+of a type former, various constructors, and an eliminator (or destructor) that
+serves as primitive recursor.
+
+For example, we might add a $\mylist$ type constructor, along with an `empty
+list' ($\mynil{ }$) and `cons cell' ($\mycons$) constructor. The eliminator for
+lists will be the usual folding operation ($\myfoldr$). See figure
+\ref{fig:list}.
+
+\begin{figure}[h]
+\mydesc{syntax}{ }{
+ $
+ \begin{array}{r@{\ }c@{\ }l}
+ \mytmsyn & ::= & \cdots \mysynsep \mynil{\mytysyn} \mysynsep \mytmsyn \mycons \mytmsyn
+ \mysynsep
+ \myapp{\myapp{\myapp{\myfoldr}{\mytmsyn}}{\mytmsyn}}{\mytmsyn} \\
+ \mytysyn & ::= & \cdots \mysynsep \myapp{\mylist}{\mytysyn}
+ \end{array}
+ $
+}
+\mydesc{reduction:}{\mytmsyn \myred \mytmsyn}{
+ $
+ \begin{array}{l@{\ }c@{\ }l}
+ \myapp{\myapp{\myapp{\myfoldr}{\myse{f}}}{\mytmt}}{\mynil{\mytya}} & \myred & \mytmt \\
+
+ \myapp{\myapp{\myapp{\myfoldr}{\myse{f}}}{\mytmt}}{(\mytmm \mycons \mytmn)} & \myred &
+ \myapp{\myapp{\myse{f}}{\mytmm}}{(\myapp{\myapp{\myapp{\myfoldr}{\myse{f}}}{\mytmt}}{\mytmn})}
+ \end{array}
+ $
+}
+\mydesc{typing:}{\myjud{\mytmsyn}{\mytysyn}}{
+ \begin{tabular}{cc}
+ \AxiomC{\phantom{$\myjud{\mytmm}{\mytya}$}}
+ \UnaryInfC{$\myjud{\mynil{\mytya}}{\myapp{\mylist}{\mytya}}$}
+ \DisplayProof
+ &
+ \AxiomC{$\myjud{\mytmm}{\mytya}$}
+ \AxiomC{$\myjud{\mytmn}{\myapp{\mylist}{\mytya}}$}
+ \BinaryInfC{$\myjud{\mytmm \mycons \mytmn}{\myapp{\mylist}{\mytya}}$}
+ \DisplayProof
+ \end{tabular}
+ \myderivsp
+
+ \AxiomC{$\myjud{\mysynel{f}}{\mytya \myarr \mytyb \myarr \mytyb}$}
+ \AxiomC{$\myjud{\mytmm}{\mytyb}$}
+ \AxiomC{$\myjud{\mytmn}{\myapp{\mylist}{\mytya}}$}
+ \TrinaryInfC{$\myjud{\myapp{\myapp{\myapp{\myfoldr}{\mysynel{f}}}{\mytmm}}{\mytmn}}{\mytyb}$}
+ \DisplayProof
+}
+\caption{Rules for lists in the STLC.}
+\label{fig:list}
+\end{figure}
+
+In section \ref{sec:well-order} we will see how to give a general account of
+inductive data. %TODO does this make sense to have here?
+
+\section{Intuitionistic Type Theory}
\label{sec:itt}
+\subsection{Extending the STLC}
+
+The STLC can be made more expressive in various ways. \cite{Barendregt1991}
+succinctly expressed geometrically how we can add expressivity:
+
+$$
+\xymatrix@!0@=1.5cm{
+ & \lambda\omega \ar@{-}[rr]\ar@{-}'[d][dd]
+ & & \lambda C \ar@{-}[dd]
+ \\
+ \lambda2 \ar@{-}[ur]\ar@{-}[rr]\ar@{-}[dd]
+ & & \lambda P2 \ar@{-}[ur]\ar@{-}[dd]
+ \\
+ & \lambda\underline\omega \ar@{-}'[r][rr]
+ & & \lambda P\underline\omega
+ \\
+ \lambda{\to} \ar@{-}[rr]\ar@{-}[ur]
+ & & \lambda P \ar@{-}[ur]
+}
+$$
+Here $\lambda{\to}$, in the bottom left, is the STLC. From there can move along
+3 dimensions:
+\begin{description}
+\item[Terms depending on types (towards $\lambda{2}$)] We can quantify over
+ types in our type signatures. For example, we can define a polymorphic
+ identity function:
+ {\small\[\displaystyle
+ (\myabss{\myb{A}}{\mytyp}{\myabss{\myb{x}}{\myb{A}}{\myb{x}}}) : (\myb{A} : \mytyp) \myarr \myb{A} \myarr \myb{A}
+ \]}
+ The first and most famous instance of this idea has been System F. This form
+ of polymorphism and has been wildly successful, also thanks to a well known
+ inference algorithm for a restricted version of System F known as
+ Hindley-Milner. Languages like Haskell and SML are based on this discipline.
+\item[Types depending on types (towards $\lambda{\underline{\omega}}$)] We have
+ type operators. For example we could define a function that given types $R$
+ and $\mytya$ forms the type that represents a value of type $\mytya$ in
+ continuation passing style: {\small\[\displaystyle(\myabss{\myb{A} \myar \myb{R}}{\mytyp}{(\myb{A}
+ \myarr \myb{R}) \myarr \myb{R}}) : \mytyp \myarr \mytyp \myarr \mytyp\]}
+\item[Types depending on terms (towards $\lambda{P}$)] Also known as `dependent
+ types', give great expressive power. For example, we can have values of whose
+ type depend on a boolean:
+ {\small\[\displaystyle(\myabss{\myb{x}}{\mybool}{\myite{\myb{x}}{\mynat}{\myrat}}) : \mybool
+ \myarr \mytyp\]}
+\end{description}
+
+All the systems preserve the properties that make the STLC well behaved. The
+system we are going to focus on, Intuitionistic Type Theory, has all of the
+above additions, and thus would sit where $\lambda{C}$ sits in the
+`$\lambda$-cube'. It will serve as the logical `core' of all the other
+extensions that we will present and ultimately our implementation of a similar
+logic.
+
+\subsection{A Bit of History}
+
+Logic frameworks and programming languages based on type theory have a long
+history. Per Martin-L\"{o}f described the first version of his theory in 1971,
+but then revised it since the original version was inconsistent due to its
+impredicativity\footnote{In the early version there was only one universe
+ $\mytyp$ and $\mytyp : \mytyp$, see section \ref{sec:term-types} for an
+ explanation on why this causes problems.}. For this reason he gave a revised
+and consistent definition later \citep{Martin-Lof1984}.
+
+A related development is the polymorphic $\lambda$-calculus, and specifically
+the previously mentioned System F, which was developed independently by Girard
+and Reynolds. An overview can be found in \citep{Reynolds1994}. The surprising
+fact is that while System F is impredicative it is still consistent and strongly
+normalising. \cite{Coquand1986} further extended this line of work with the
+Calculus of Constructions (CoC).
+
+Most widely used interactive theorem provers are based on ITT. Popular ones
+include Agda \citep{Norell2007, Bove2009}, Coq \citep{Coq}, and Epigram
+\citep{McBride2004, EpigramTut}.
+
+\subsection{A note on inference}
+
+% TODO do this, adding links to the sections about bidi type checking and
+% implicit universes.
+In the following text I will often omit explicit typing for abstractions or
+
+Moreover, I will use $\mytyp$ without bothering to specify a
+universe, with the silent assumption that the definition is consistent
+regarding to the hierarchy.
+
+\subsection{A simple type theory}
+\label{sec:core-tt}
+
+The calculus I present follows the exposition in \citep{Thompson1991},
+and is quite close to the original formulation of predicative ITT as
+found in \citep{Martin-Lof1984}. The system's syntax and reduction
+rules are presented in their entirety in figure \ref{fig:core-tt-syn}.
+The typing rules are presented piece by piece. Agda and \mykant\
+renditions of the presented theory and all the examples is reproduced in
+appendix \ref{app:itt-code}.
+
+\begin{figure}[t]
+\mydesc{syntax}{ }{
+ $
+ \begin{array}{r@{\ }c@{\ }l}
+ \mytmsyn & ::= & \myb{x} \mysynsep
+ \mytyp_{l} \mysynsep
+ \myunit \mysynsep \mytt \mysynsep
+ \myempty \mysynsep \myapp{\myabsurd{\mytmsyn}}{\mytmsyn} \\
+ & | & \mybool \mysynsep \mytrue \mysynsep \myfalse \mysynsep
+ \myitee{\mytmsyn}{\myb{x}}{\mytmsyn}{\mytmsyn}{\mytmsyn} \\
+ & | & \myfora{\myb{x}}{\mytmsyn}{\mytmsyn} \mysynsep
+ \myabss{\myb{x}}{\mytmsyn}{\mytmsyn} \mysynsep
+ (\myapp{\mytmsyn}{\mytmsyn}) \\
+ & | & \myexi{\myb{x}}{\mytmsyn}{\mytmsyn} \mysynsep
+ \mypairr{\mytmsyn}{\myb{x}}{\mytmsyn}{\mytmsyn} \\
+ & | & \myapp{\myfst}{\mytmsyn} \mysynsep \myapp{\mysnd}{\mytmsyn} \\
+ & | & \myw{\myb{x}}{\mytmsyn}{\mytmsyn} \mysynsep
+ \mytmsyn \mynode{\myb{x}}{\mytmsyn} \mytmsyn \\
+ & | & \myrec{\mytmsyn}{\myb{x}}{\mytmsyn}{\mytmsyn} \\
+ l & \in & \mathbb{N}
+ \end{array}
+ $
+}
+
+\mydesc{reduction:}{\mytmsyn \myred \mytmsyn}{
+ \begin{tabular}{ccc}
+ $
+ \begin{array}{l@{ }l@{\ }c@{\ }l}
+ \myitee{\mytrue &}{\myb{x}}{\myse{P}}{\mytmm}{\mytmn} & \myred & \mytmm \\
+ \myitee{\myfalse &}{\myb{x}}{\myse{P}}{\mytmm}{\mytmn} & \myred & \mytmn \\
+ \end{array}
+ $
+ &
+ $
+ \myapp{(\myabss{\myb{x}}{\mytya}{\mytmm})}{\mytmn} \myred \mysub{\mytmm}{\myb{x}}{\mytmn}
+ $
+ &
+ $
+ \begin{array}{l@{ }l@{\ }c@{\ }l}
+ \myapp{\myfst &}{\mypair{\mytmm}{\mytmn}} & \myred & \mytmm \\
+ \myapp{\mysnd &}{\mypair{\mytmm}{\mytmn}} & \myred & \mytmn
+ \end{array}
+ $
+ \end{tabular}
+
+ \myderivsp
+
+ $
+ \myrec{(\myse{s} \mynode{\myb{x}}{\myse{T}} \myse{f})}{\myb{y}}{\myse{P}}{\myse{p}} \myred
+ \myapp{\myapp{\myapp{\myse{p}}{\myse{s}}}{\myse{f}}}{(\myabss{\myb{t}}{\mysub{\myse{T}}{\myb{x}}{\myse{s}}}{
+ \myrec{\myapp{\myse{f}}{\myb{t}}}{\myb{y}}{\myse{P}}{\mytmt}
+ })}
+ $
+}
+\caption{Syntax and reduction rules for our type theory.}
+\label{fig:core-tt-syn}
+\end{figure}
+
+\subsubsection{Types are terms, some terms are types}
+\label{sec:term-types}
+
+\mydesc{typing:}{\myjud{\mytmsyn}{\mytmsyn}}{
+ \begin{tabular}{cc}
+ \AxiomC{$\myjud{\mytmt}{\mytya}$}
+ \AxiomC{$\mytya \mydefeq \mytyb$}
+ \BinaryInfC{$\myjud{\mytmt}{\mytyb}$}
+ \DisplayProof
+ &
+ \AxiomC{\phantom{$\myjud{\mytmt}{\mytya}$}}
+ \UnaryInfC{$\myjud{\mytyp_l}{\mytyp_{l + 1}}$}
+ \DisplayProof
+ \end{tabular}
+}
+
+The first thing to notice is that a barrier between values and types that we had
+in the STLC is gone: values can appear in types, and the two are treated
+uniformly in the syntax.
+
+While the usefulness of doing this will become clear soon, a consequence is
+that since types can be the result of computation, deciding type equality is
+not immediate as in the STLC. For this reason we define \emph{definitional
+ equality}, $\mydefeq$, as the congruence relation extending
+$\myred$---moreover, when comparing types syntactically we do it up to
+renaming of bound names ($\alpha$-renaming). For example under this
+discipline we will find that
+{\small\[
+\myabss{\myb{x}}{\mytya}{\myb{x}} \mydefeq \myabss{\myb{y}}{\mytya}{\myb{y}}
+\]}
+Types that are definitionally equal can be used interchangeably. Here
+the `conversion' rule is not syntax directed, but it is possible to
+employ $\myred$ to decide term equality in a systematic way, by always
+reducing terms to their normal forms before comparing them, so that a
+separate conversion rule is not needed. % TODO add section
+Another thing to notice is that considering the need to reduce terms to
+decide equality, it is essential for a dependently type system to be
+terminating and confluent for type checking to be decidable.
+
+Moreover, we specify a \emph{type hierarchy} to talk about `large'
+types: $\mytyp_0$ will be the type of types inhabited by data:
+$\mybool$, $\mynat$, $\mylist$, etc. $\mytyp_1$ will be the type of
+$\mytyp_0$, and so on---for example we have $\mytrue : \mybool :
+\mytyp_0 : \mytyp_1 : \cdots$. Each type `level' is often called a
+universe in the literature. While it is possible to simplify things by
+having only one universe $\mytyp$ with $\mytyp : \mytyp$, this plan is
+inconsistent for much the same reason that impredicative na\"{\i}ve set
+theory is \citep{Hurkens1995}. However various techniques can be
+employed to lift the burden of explicitly handling universes, as we will
+see in section \ref{sec:term-hierarchy}.
+
+\subsubsection{Contexts}
+
+\begin{minipage}{0.5\textwidth}
+ \mydesc{context validity:}{\myvalid{\myctx}}{
+ \begin{tabular}{cc}
+ \AxiomC{\phantom{$\myjud{\mytya}{\mytyp_l}$}}
+ \UnaryInfC{$\myvalid{\myemptyctx}$}
+ \DisplayProof
+ &
+ \AxiomC{$\myjud{\mytya}{\mytyp_l}$}
+ \UnaryInfC{$\myvalid{\myctx ; \myb{x} : \mytya}$}
+ \DisplayProof
+ \end{tabular}
+ }
+\end{minipage}
+\begin{minipage}{0.5\textwidth}
+ \mydesc{typing:}{\myjud{\mytmsyn}{\mytmsyn}}{
+ \AxiomC{$\myctx(x) = \mytya$}
+ \UnaryInfC{$\myjud{\myb{x}}{\mytya}$}
+ \DisplayProof
+ }
+\end{minipage}
+\vspace{0.1cm}
+
+We need to refine the notion context to make sure that every variable appearing
+is typed correctly, or that in other words each type appearing in the context is
+indeed a type and not a value. In every other rule, if no premises are present,
+we assume the context in the conclusion to be valid.
+
+Then we can re-introduce the old rule to get the type of a variable for a
+context.
+
+\subsubsection{$\myunit$, $\myempty$}
+
+\mydesc{typing:}{\myjud{\mytmsyn}{\mytmsyn}}{
+ \begin{tabular}{ccc}
+ \AxiomC{\phantom{$\myjud{\mytya}{\mytyp_l}$}}
+ \UnaryInfC{$\myjud{\myunit}{\mytyp_0}$}
+ \noLine
+ \UnaryInfC{$\myjud{\myempty}{\mytyp_0}$}
+ \DisplayProof
+ &
+ \AxiomC{\phantom{$\myjud{\mytya}{\mytyp_l}$}}
+ \UnaryInfC{$\myjud{\mytt}{\myunit}$}
+ \noLine
+ \UnaryInfC{\phantom{$\myjud{\myempty}{\mytyp_0}$}}
+ \DisplayProof
+ &
+ \AxiomC{$\myjud{\mytmt}{\myempty}$}
+ \AxiomC{$\myjud{\mytya}{\mytyp_l}$}
+ \BinaryInfC{$\myjud{\myapp{\myabsurd{\mytya}}{\mytmt}}{\mytya}$}
+ \noLine
+ \UnaryInfC{\phantom{$\myjud{\myempty}{\mytyp_0}$}}
+ \DisplayProof
+ \end{tabular}
+}
+
+Nothing surprising here: $\myunit$ and $\myempty$ are unchanged from the STLC,
+with the added rules to type $\myunit$ and $\myempty$ themselves, and to make
+sure that we are invoking $\myabsurd{}$ over a type.
+
+\subsubsection{$\mybool$, and dependent $\myfun{if}$}
+
+\mydesc{typing:}{\myjud{\mytmsyn}{\mytmsyn}}{
+ \begin{tabular}{ccc}
+ \AxiomC{}
+ \UnaryInfC{$\myjud{\mybool}{\mytyp_0}$}
+ \DisplayProof
+ &
+ \AxiomC{}
+ \UnaryInfC{$\myjud{\mytrue}{\mybool}$}
+ \DisplayProof
+ &
+ \AxiomC{}
+ \UnaryInfC{$\myjud{\myfalse}{\mybool}$}
+ \DisplayProof
+ \end{tabular}
+ \myderivsp
+
+ \AxiomC{$\myjud{\mytmt}{\mybool}$}
+ \AxiomC{$\myjudd{\myctx : \mybool}{\mytya}{\mytyp_l}$}
+ \noLine
+ \BinaryInfC{$\myjud{\mytmm}{\mysub{\mytya}{x}{\mytrue}}$ \hspace{0.7cm} $\myjud{\mytmn}{\mysub{\mytya}{x}{\myfalse}}$}
+ \UnaryInfC{$\myjud{\myitee{\mytmt}{\myb{x}}{\mytya}{\mytmm}{\mytmn}}{\mysub{\mytya}{\myb{x}}{\mytmt}}$}
+ \DisplayProof
+}
+
+With booleans we get the first taste of the `dependent' in `dependent
+types'. While the two introduction rules ($\mytrue$ and $\myfalse$) are
+not surprising, the typing rules for $\myfun{if}$ are. In most strongly
+typed languages we expect the branches of an $\myfun{if}$ statements to
+be of the same type, to preserve subject reduction, since execution
+could take both paths. This is a pity, since the type system does not
+reflect the fact that in each branch we gain knowledge on the term we
+are branching on. Which means that programs along the lines of
+{\small\[\text{\texttt{if null xs then head xs else 0}}\]}
+are a necessary, well typed, danger.
+
+However, in a more expressive system, we can do better: the branches' type can
+depend on the value of the scrutinised boolean. This is what the typing rule
+expresses: the user provides a type $\mytya$ ranging over an $\myb{x}$
+representing the scrutinised boolean type, and the branches are typechecked with
+the updated knowledge on the value of $\myb{x}$.
+
+\subsubsection{$\myarr$, or dependent function}
+
+ \mydesc{typing:}{\myjud{\mytmsyn}{\mytmsyn}}{
+ \AxiomC{$\myjud{\mytya}{\mytyp_{l_1}}$}
+ \AxiomC{$\myjudd{\myctx;\myb{x} : \mytya}{\mytyb}{\mytyp_{l_2}}$}
+ \BinaryInfC{$\myjud{\myfora{\myb{x}}{\mytya}{\mytyb}}{\mytyp_{l_1 \mylub l_2}}$}
+ \DisplayProof
+
+ \myderivsp
+
+ \begin{tabular}{cc}
+ \AxiomC{$\myjudd{\myctx; \myb{x} : \mytya}{\mytmt}{\mytyb}$}
+ \UnaryInfC{$\myjud{\myabss{\myb{x}}{\mytya}{\mytmt}}{\myfora{\myb{x}}{\mytya}{\mytyb}}$}
+ \DisplayProof
+ &
+ \AxiomC{$\myjud{\mytmm}{\myfora{\myb{x}}{\mytya}{\mytyb}}$}
+ \AxiomC{$\myjud{\mytmn}{\mytya}$}
+ \BinaryInfC{$\myjud{\myapp{\mytmm}{\mytmn}}{\mysub{\mytyb}{\myb{x}}{\mytmn}}$}
+ \DisplayProof
+ \end{tabular}
+}
+
+Dependent functions are one of the two key features that perhaps most
+characterise dependent types---the other being dependent products. With
+dependent functions, the result type can depend on the value of the
+argument. This feature, together with the fact that the result type
+might be a type itself, brings a lot of interesting possibilities.
+Following this intuition, in the introduction rule, the return type is
+typechecked in a context with an abstracted variable of lhs' type, and
+in the elimination rule the actual argument is substituted in the return
+type. Keeping the correspondence with logic alive, dependent functions
+are much like universal quantifiers ($\forall$) in logic.
+
+For example, assuming that we have lists and natural numbers in our
+language, using dependent functions we would be able to
+write:
+{\small\[
+\begin{array}{l}
+\myfun{length} : (\myb{A} {:} \mytyp_0) \myarr \myapp{\mylist}{\myb{A}} \myarr \mynat \\
+\myarg \myfun{$>$} \myarg : \mynat \myarr \mynat \myarr \mytyp_0 \\
+\myfun{head} : (\myb{A} {:} \mytyp_0) \myarr (\myb{l} {:} \myapp{\mylist}{\myb{A}})
+ \myarr \myapp{\myapp{\myfun{length}}{\myb{A}}}{\myb{l}} \mathrel{\myfun{>}} 0 \myarr
+ \myb{A}
+\end{array}
+\]}
+
+\myfun{length} is the usual polymorphic length function. $\myfun{>}$ is
+a function that takes two naturals and returns a type: if the lhs is
+greater then the rhs, $\myunit$ is returned, $\myempty$ otherwise. This
+way, we can express a `non-emptyness' condition in $\myfun{head}$, by
+including a proof that the length of the list argument is non-zero.
+This allows us to rule out the `empty list' case, so that we can safely
+return the first element.
+
+Again, we need to make sure that the type hierarchy is respected, which is the
+reason why a type formed by $\myarr$ will live in the least upper bound of the
+levels of argument and return type. This trend will continue with the other
+type-level binders, $\myprod$ and $\mytyc{W}$.
+
+\subsubsection{$\myprod$, or dependent product}
+\label{sec:disju}
+
+\mydesc{typing:}{\myjud{\mytmsyn}{\mytmsyn}}{
+ \AxiomC{$\myjud{\mytya}{\mytyp_{l_1}}$}
+ \AxiomC{$\myjudd{\myctx;\myb{x} : \mytya}{\mytyb}{\mytyp_{l_2}}$}
+ \BinaryInfC{$\myjud{\myexi{\myb{x}}{\mytya}{\mytyb}}{\mytyp_{l_1 \mylub l_2}}$}
+ \DisplayProof
+
+ \myderivsp
+
+ \begin{tabular}{cc}
+ \AxiomC{$\myjud{\mytmm}{\mytya}$}
+ \AxiomC{$\myjud{\mytmn}{\mysub{\mytyb}{\myb{x}}{\mytmm}}$}
+ \BinaryInfC{$\myjud{\mypairr{\mytmm}{\myb{x}}{\mytyb}{\mytmn}}{\myexi{\myb{x}}{\mytya}{\mytyb}}$}
+ \noLine
+ \UnaryInfC{\phantom{$--$}}
+ \DisplayProof
+ &
+ \AxiomC{$\myjud{\mytmt}{\myexi{\myb{x}}{\mytya}{\mytyb}}$}
+ \UnaryInfC{$\hspace{0.7cm}\myjud{\myapp{\myfst}{\mytmt}}{\mytya}\hspace{0.7cm}$}
+ \noLine
+ \UnaryInfC{$\myjud{\myapp{\mysnd}{\mytmt}}{\mysub{\mytyb}{\myb{x}}{\myapp{\myfst}{\mytmt}}}$}
+ \DisplayProof
+ \end{tabular}
+}
+
+If dependent functions are a generalisation of $\myarr$ in the STLC,
+dependent products are a generalisation of $\myprod$ in the STLC. The
+improvement is that the second element's type can depend on the value of
+the first element. The corrispondence with logic is through the
+existential quantifier: $\exists x \in \mathbb{N}. even(x)$ can be
+expressed as $\myexi{\myb{x}}{\mynat}{\myapp{\myfun{even}}{\myb{x}}}$.
+The first element will be a number, and the second evidence that the
+number is even. This highlights the fact that we are working in a
+constructive logic: if we have an existence proof, we can always ask for
+a witness. This means, for instance, that $\neg \forall \neg$ is not
+equivalent to $\exists$.
+
+Another perhaps more `dependent' application of products, paired with
+$\mybool$, is to offer choice between different types. For example we
+can easily recover disjunctions:
+{\small\[
+\begin{array}{l}
+ \myarg\myfun{$\vee$}\myarg : \mytyp_0 \myarr \mytyp_0 \myarr \mytyp_0 \\
+ \myb{A} \mathrel{\myfun{$\vee$}} \myb{B} \mapsto \myexi{\myb{x}}{\mybool}{\myite{\myb{x}}{\myb{A}}{\myb{B}}} \\ \ \\
+ \myfun{case} : (\myb{A}\ \myb{B}\ \myb{C} {:} \mytyp_0) \myarr (\myb{A} \myarr \myb{C}) \myarr (\myb{B} \myarr \myb{C}) \myarr \myb{A} \mathrel{\myfun{$\vee$}} \myb{B} \myarr \myb{C} \\
+ \myfun{case} \myappsp \myb{A} \myappsp \myb{B} \myappsp \myb{C} \myappsp \myb{f} \myappsp \myb{g} \myappsp \myb{x} \mapsto \\
+ \myind{2} \myapp{(\myitee{\myapp{\myfst}{\myb{b}}}{\myb{x}}{(\myite{\myb{b}}{\myb{A}}{\myb{B}})}{\myb{f}}{\myb{g}})}{(\myapp{\mysnd}{\myb{x}})}
+\end{array}
+\]}
+
+\subsubsection{$\mytyc{W}$, or well-order}
+\label{sec:well-order}
+
+\mydesc{typing:}{\myjud{\mytmsyn}{\mytmsyn}}{
+ \AxiomC{$\myjud{\mytya}{\mytyp_{l_1}}$}
+ \AxiomC{$\myjudd{\myctx;\myb{x} : \mytya}{\mytyb}{\mytyp_{l_2}}$}
+ \BinaryInfC{$\myjud{\myw{\myb{x}}{\mytya}{\mytyb}}{\mytyp_{l_1 \mylub l_2}}$}
+ \DisplayProof
+
+ \myderivsp
+
+ \AxiomC{$\myjud{\mytmt}{\mytya}$}
+ \AxiomC{$\myjud{\mysynel{f}}{\mysub{\mytyb}{\myb{x}}{\mytmt} \myarr \myw{\myb{x}}{\mytya}{\mytyb}}$}
+ \BinaryInfC{$\myjud{\mytmt \mynode{\myb{x}}{\mytyb} \myse{f}}{\myw{\myb{x}}{\mytya}{\mytyb}}$}
+ \DisplayProof
+
+ \myderivsp
+
+ \AxiomC{$\myjud{\myse{u}}{\myw{\myb{x}}{\myse{S}}{\myse{T}}}$}
+ \AxiomC{$\myjudd{\myctx; \myb{w} : \myw{\myb{x}}{\myse{S}}{\myse{T}}}{\myse{P}}{\mytyp_l}$}
+ \noLine
+ \BinaryInfC{$\myjud{\myse{p}}{
+ \myfora{\myb{s}}{\myse{S}}{\myfora{\myb{f}}{\mysub{\myse{T}}{\myb{x}}{\myse{s}} \myarr \myw{\myb{x}}{\myse{S}}{\myse{T}}}{(\myfora{\myb{t}}{\mysub{\myse{T}}{\myb{x}}{\myb{s}}}{\mysub{\myse{P}}{\myb{w}}{\myapp{\myb{f}}{\myb{t}}}}) \myarr \mysub{\myse{P}}{\myb{w}}{\myb{f}}}}
+ }$}
+ \UnaryInfC{$\myjud{\myrec{\myse{u}}{\myb{w}}{\myse{P}}{\myse{p}}}{\mysub{\myse{P}}{\myb{w}}{\myse{u}}}$}
+ \DisplayProof
+}
+
+Finally, the well-order type, or in short $\mytyc{W}$-type, which will
+let us represent inductive data in a general (but clumsy) way. The core
+idea is to
+
+
\section{The struggle for equality}
\label{sec:equality}
-\section{A more useful language}
-\label{sec:practical}
+In the previous section we saw how a type checker (or a human) needs a
+notion of \emph{definitional equality}. Beyond this meta-theoretic
+notion, in this section we will explore the ways of expressing equality
+\emph{inside} the theory, as a reasoning tool available to the user.
+This area is the main concern of this thesis, and in general a very
+active research topic, since we do not have a fully satisfactory
+solution, yet. As in the previous section, everything presented is
+formalised in Agda in appendix \ref{app:agda-itt}.
+
+\subsection{Propositional equality}
+
+\noindent
+\begin{minipage}{0.5\textwidth}
+\mydesc{syntax}{ }{
+ $
+ \begin{array}{r@{\ }c@{\ }l}
+ \mytmsyn & ::= & \cdots \\
+ & | & \mytmsyn \mypeq{\mytmsyn} \mytmsyn \mysynsep
+ \myapp{\myrefl}{\mytmsyn} \\
+ & | & \myjeq{\mytmsyn}{\mytmsyn}{\mytmsyn}
+ \end{array}
+ $
+}
+\end{minipage}
+\begin{minipage}{0.5\textwidth}
+\mydesc{reduction:}{\mytmsyn \myred \mytmsyn}{
+ $
+ \myjeq{\myse{P}}{(\myapp{\myrefl}{\mytmm})}{\mytmn} \myred \mytmn
+ $
+ \vspace{0.87cm}
+}
+\end{minipage}
+
+\mydesc{typing:}{\myjud{\mytmsyn}{\mytmsyn}}{
+ \AxiomC{$\myjud{\mytya}{\mytyp_l}$}
+ \AxiomC{$\myjud{\mytmm}{\mytya}$}
+ \AxiomC{$\myjud{\mytmn}{\mytya}$}
+ \TrinaryInfC{$\myjud{\mytmm \mypeq{\mytya} \mytmn}{\mytyp_l}$}
+ \DisplayProof
+
+ \myderivsp
+
+ \begin{tabular}{cc}
+ \AxiomC{$\begin{array}{c}\ \\\myjud{\mytmm}{\mytya}\hspace{1.1cm}\mytmm \mydefeq \mytmn\end{array}$}
+ \UnaryInfC{$\myjud{\myapp{\myrefl}{\mytmm}}{\mytmm \mypeq{\mytya} \mytmn}$}
+ \DisplayProof
+ &
+ \AxiomC{$
+ \begin{array}{c}
+ \myjud{\myse{P}}{\myfora{\myb{x}\ \myb{y}}{\mytya}{\myfora{q}{\myb{x} \mypeq{\mytya} \myb{y}}{\mytyp_l}}} \\
+ \myjud{\myse{q}}{\mytmm \mypeq{\mytya} \mytmn}\hspace{1.1cm}\myjud{\myse{p}}{\myapp{\myapp{\myapp{\myse{P}}{\mytmm}}{\mytmm}}{(\myapp{\myrefl}{\mytmm})}}
+ \end{array}
+ $}
+ \UnaryInfC{$\myjud{\myjeq{\myse{P}}{\myse{q}}{\myse{p}}}{\myapp{\myapp{\myapp{\myse{P}}{\mytmm}}{\mytmn}}{q}}$}
+ \DisplayProof
+ \end{tabular}
+}
+
+To express equality between two terms inside ITT, the obvious way to do so is
+to have the equality construction to be a type-former. Here we present what
+has survived as the dominating form of equality in systems based on ITT up to
+the present day.
+
+Our type former is $\mypeq{\mytya}$, which given a type (in this case
+$\mytya$) relates equal terms of that type. $\mypeq{}$ has one introduction
+rule, $\myrefl$, which introduces an equality relation between definitionally
+equal terms.
+
+Finally, we have one eliminator for $\mypeq{}$, $\myjeqq$. $\myjeq{\myse{P}}{\myse{q}}{\myse{p}}$ takes
+\begin{itemize}
+\item $\myse{P}$, a predicate working with two terms of a certain type (say
+ $\mytya$) and a proof of their equality
+\item $\myse{q}$, a proof that two terms in $\mytya$ (say $\myse{m}$ and
+ $\myse{n}$) are equal
+\item and $\myse{p}$, an inhabitant of $\myse{P}$ applied to $\myse{m}$, plus
+ the trivial proof by reflexivity showing that $\myse{m}$ is equal to itself
+\end{itemize}
+Given these ingredients, $\myjeqq$ retuns a member of $\myse{P}$ applied to
+$\mytmm$, $\mytmn$, and $\myse{q}$. In other words $\myjeqq$ takes a
+witness that $\myse{P}$ works with \emph{definitionally equal} terms, and
+returns a witness of $\myse{P}$ working with \emph{propositionally equal}
+terms. Invokations of $\myjeqq$ will vanish when the equality proofs will
+reduce to invocations to reflexivity, at which point the arguments must be
+definitionally equal, and thus the provided
+$\myapp{\myapp{\myapp{\myse{P}}{\mytmm}}{\mytmm}}{(\myapp{\myrefl}{\mytmm})}$
+can be returned.
+
+While the $\myjeqq$ rule is slightly convoluted, ve can derive many more
+`friendly' rules from it, for example a more obvious `substitution' rule, that
+replaces equal for equal in predicates:
+{\small\[
+\begin{array}{l}
+\myfun{subst} : \myfora{\myb{A}}{\mytyp}{\myfora{\myb{P}}{\myb{A} \myarr \mytyp}{\myfora{\myb{x}\ \myb{y}}{\myb{A}}{\myb{x} \mypeq{\myb{A}} \myb{y} \myarr \myapp{\myb{P}}{\myb{x}} \myarr \myapp{\myb{P}}{\myb{y}}}}} \\
+\myfun{subst}\myappsp \myb{A}\myappsp\myb{P}\myappsp\myb{x}\myappsp\myb{y}\myappsp\myb{q}\myappsp\myb{p} \mapsto
+ \myjeq{(\myabs{\myb{x}\ \myb{y}\ \myb{q}}{\myapp{\myb{P}}{\myb{y}}})}{\myb{p}}{\myb{q}}
+\end{array}
+\]}
+Once we have $\myfun{subst}$, we can easily prove more familiar laws regarding
+equality, such as symmetry, transitivity, and a congruence law.
+
+% TODO finish this
+
+\subsection{Common extensions}
+
+Our definitional equality can be made larger in various ways, here we
+review some common extensions.
+
+\subsubsection{Congruence laws and $\eta$-expansion}
+
+A simple type-directed check that we can do on functions and records is
+$\eta$-expansion. We can then have
+
+\mydesc{definitional equality:}{\myjud{\mytmm \mydefeq \mytmn}{\mytmsyn}}{
+ \begin{tabular}{cc}
+ \AxiomC{$\myjud{f \mydefeq (\myabss{\myb{x}}{\mytya}{\myapp{\myse{g}}{\myb{x}}})}{\myfora{\myb{x}}{\mytya}{\mytyb}}$}
+ \UnaryInfC{$\myjud{\myse{f} \mydefeq \myse{g}}{\myfora{\myb{x}}{\mytya}{\mytyb}}$}
+ \DisplayProof
+ &
+ \AxiomC{$\myjud{\mytmm \mydefeq \mypair{\myapp{\myfst}{\mytmn}}{\myapp{\mysnd}{\mytmn}}}{\myexi{\myb{x}}{\mytya}{\mytyb}}$}
+ \UnaryInfC{$\myjud{\mytmm \mydefeq \mytmn}{\myexi{\myb{x}}{\mytya}{\mytyb}}$}
+ \DisplayProof
+ \end{tabular}
+
+ \myderivsp
+
+ \AxiomC{$\myjud{\mytmm}{\myunit}$}
+ \AxiomC{$\myjud{\mytmn}{\myunit}$}
+ \BinaryInfC{$\myjud{\mytmm \mydefeq \mytmn}{\myunit}$}
+ \DisplayProof
+}
+
+% \mydesc{definitional equality:}{\mytmsyn \mydefeq \mytmsyn}{
+% \begin{tabular}{cc}
+% \AxiomC{}
+% &
+% foo
+% \end{tabular}
+% }
+% \end{description}
+
+\subsubsection{Uniqueness of identity proofs}
+
+% TODO reference the fact that J does not imply J
+% TODO mention univalence
+
+
+\mydesc{definitional equality:}{\myjud{\mytmm \mydefeq \mytmn}{\mytmsyn}}{
+ \AxiomC{$
+ \begin{array}{@{}c}
+ \myjud{\myse{P}}{\myfora{\myb{x}}{\mytya}{\myb{x} \mypeq{\mytya} \myb{x} \myarr \mytyp}} \\\
+ \myjud{\myse{p}}{\myfora{\myb{x}}{\mytya}{\myse{P} \myappsp \myb{x} \myappsp \myb{x} \myappsp (\myrefl \myapp \myb{x})}} \hspace{1cm}
+ \myjud{\mytmt}{\mytya} \hspace{1cm}
+ \myjud{\myse{q}}{\mytmt \mypeq{\mytya} \mytmt}
+ \end{array}
+ $}
+ \UnaryInfC{$\myjud{\myfun{K} \myappsp \myse{P} \myappsp \myse{p} \myappsp \myse{t} \myappsp \myse{q}}{\myse{P} \myappsp \mytmt \myappsp \myse{q}}$}
+ \DisplayProof
+}
+
+\subsection{Limitations}
+
+\epigraph{\emph{Half of my time spent doing research involves thinking up clever
+ schemes to avoid needing functional extensionality.}}{@larrytheliquid}
+
+However, propositional equality as described is quite restricted when
+reasoning about equality beyond the term structure, which is what definitional
+equality gives us (extension notwithstanding).
+
+The problem is best exemplified by \emph{function extensionality}. In
+mathematics, we would expect to be able to treat functions that give equal
+output for equal input as the same. When reasoning in a mechanised framework
+we ought to be able to do the same: in the end, without considering the
+operational behaviour, all functions equal extensionally are going to be
+replaceable with one another.
+
+However this is not the case, or in other words with the tools we have we have
+no term of type
+{\small\[
+\myfun{ext} : \myfora{\myb{A}\ \myb{B}}{\mytyp}{\myfora{\myb{f}\ \myb{g}}{
+ \myb{A} \myarr \myb{B}}{
+ (\myfora{\myb{x}}{\myb{A}}{\myapp{\myb{f}}{\myb{x}} \mypeq{\myb{B}} \myapp{\myb{g}}{\myb{x}}}) \myarr
+ \myb{f} \mypeq{\myb{A} \myarr \myb{B}} \myb{g}
+ }
+}
+\]}
+To see why this is the case, consider the functions
+{\small\[\myabs{\myb{x}}{0 \mathrel{\myfun{+}} \myb{x}}$ and $\myabs{\myb{x}}{\myb{x} \mathrel{\myfun{+}} 0}\]}
+where $\myfun{+}$ is defined by recursion on the first argument,
+gradually destructing it to build up successors of the second argument.
+The two functions are clearly extensionally equal, and we can in fact
+prove that
+{\small\[
+\myfora{\myb{x}}{\mynat}{(0 \mathrel{\myfun{+}} \myb{x}) \mypeq{\mynat} (\myb{x} \mathrel{\myfun{+}} 0)}
+\]}
+By analysis on the $\myb{x}$. However, the two functions are not
+definitionally equal, and thus we won't be able to get rid of the
+quantification.
+
+For the reasons above, theories that offer a propositional equality
+similar to what we presented are called \emph{intensional}, as opposed
+to \emph{extensional}. Most systems in wide use today (such as Agda,
+Coq, and Epigram) are of this kind.
+
+This is quite an annoyance that often makes reasoning awkward to execute. It
+also extends to other fields, for example proving bisimulation between
+processes specified by coinduction, or in general proving equivalences based
+on the behaviour on a term.
+
+\subsection{Equality reflection}
+
+One way to `solve' this problem is by identifying propositional equality with
+definitional equality:
+
+\mydesc{typing:}{\myjud{\mytmsyn}{\mytmsyn}}{
+ \AxiomC{$\myjud{\myse{q}}{\mytmm \mypeq{\mytya} \mytmn}$}
+ \UnaryInfC{$\myjud{\mytmm \mydefeq \mytmn}{\mytya}$}
+ \DisplayProof
+}
+
+This rule takes the name of \emph{equality reflection}, and is a very
+different rule from the ones we saw up to now: it links a typing judgement
+internal to the type theory to a meta-theoretic judgement that the type
+checker uses to work with terms. It is easy to see the dangerous consequences
+that this causes:
+\begin{itemize}
+\item The rule is syntax directed, and the type checker is presumably expected
+ to come up with equality proofs when needed.
+\item More worryingly, type checking becomes undecidable also because
+ computing under false assumptions becomes unsafe.
+ Consider for example
+ {\small\[
+ \myabss{\myb{q}}{\mytya \mypeq{\mytyp} (\mytya \myarr \mytya)}{\myhole{?}}
+ \]}
+ Using the assumed proof in tandem with equality reflection we could easily
+ write a classic Y combinator, sending the compiler into a loop.
+\end{itemize}
+
+Given these facts theories employing equality reflection, like NuPRL
+\citep{NuPRL}, carry the derivations that gave rise to each typing judgement
+to keep the systems manageable. % TODO more info, problems with that.
+
+For all its faults, equality reflection does allow us to prove extensionality,
+using the extensions we gave above. Assuming that $\myctx$ contains
+{\small\[\myb{A}, \myb{B} : \mytyp; \myb{f}, \myb{g} : \myb{A} \myarr \myb{B}; \myb{q} : \myfora{\myb{x}}{\myb{A}}{\myapp{\myb{f}}{\myb{x}} \mypeq{} \myapp{\myb{g}}{\myb{x}}}\]}
+We can then derive
+\begin{prooftree}
+ \small
+ \AxiomC{$\hspace{1.1cm}\myjudd{\myctx; \myb{x} : \myb{A}}{\myapp{\myb{q}}{\myb{x}}}{\myapp{\myb{f}}{\myb{x}} \mypeq{} \myapp{\myb{g}}{\myb{x}}}\hspace{1.1cm}$}
+ \RightLabel{equality reflection}
+ \UnaryInfC{$\myjudd{\myctx; \myb{x} : \myb{A}}{\myapp{\myb{f}}{\myb{x}} \mydefeq \myapp{\myb{g}}{\myb{x}}}{\myb{B}}$}
+ \RightLabel{congruence for $\lambda$s}
+ \UnaryInfC{$\myjud{(\myabs{\myb{x}}{\myapp{\myb{f}}{\myb{x}}}) \mydefeq (\myabs{\myb{x}}{\myapp{\myb{g}}{\myb{x}}})}{\myb{A} \myarr \myb{B}}$}
+ \RightLabel{$\eta$-law for $\lambda$}
+ \UnaryInfC{$\hspace{1.45cm}\myjud{\myb{f} \mydefeq \myb{g}}{\myb{A} \myarr \myb{B}}\hspace{1.45cm}$}
+ \RightLabel{$\myrefl$}
+ \UnaryInfC{$\myjud{\myapp{\myrefl}{\myb{f}}}{\myb{f} \mypeq{} \myb{g}}$}
+\end{prooftree}
+
+Now, the question is: do we need to give up well-behavedness of our theory to
+gain extensionality?
+
+\subsection{Some alternatives}
+
+% TODO add `extentional axioms' (Hoffman), setoid models (Thorsten)
+
+\section{Observational equality}
+\label{sec:ott}
+
+A recent development by \citet{Altenkirch2007}, \emph{Observational Type
+ Theory} (OTT), promises to keep the well behavedness of ITT while
+being able to gain many useful equality proofs\footnote{It is suspected
+ that OTT gains \emph{all} the equality proofs of ETT, but no proof
+ exists yet.}, including function extensionality. The main idea is to
+give the user the possibility to \emph{coerce} (or transport) values
+from a type $\mytya$ to a type $\mytyb$, if the type checker can prove
+structurally that $\mytya$ and $\mytya$ are equal; and providing a
+value-level equality based on similar principles. Here we give an
+exposition which follows closely the original paper.
+
+\subsection{A simpler theory, a propositional fragment}
+
+\mydesc{syntax}{ }{
+ $\mytyp_l$ is replaced by $\mytyp$. \\\ \\
+ $
+ \begin{array}{r@{\ }c@{\ }l}
+ \mytmsyn & ::= & \cdots \mysynsep \myprdec{\myprsyn} \mysynsep
+ \myITE{\mytmsyn}{\mytmsyn}{\mytmsyn} \\
+ \myprsyn & ::= & \mybot \mysynsep \mytop \mysynsep \myprsyn \myand \myprsyn
+ \mysynsep \myprfora{\myb{x}}{\mytmsyn}{\myprsyn}
+ \end{array}
+ $
+}
+
+\mydesc{typing:}{\myjud{\mytmsyn}{\mytmsyn}}{
+ \begin{tabular}{cc}
+ \AxiomC{$\myjud{\myse{P}}{\myprop}$}
+ \UnaryInfC{$\myjud{\myprdec{\myse{P}}}{\mytyp}$}
+ \DisplayProof
+ &
+ \AxiomC{$\myjud{\mytmt}{\mybool}$}
+ \AxiomC{$\myjud{\mytya}{\mytyp}$}
+ \AxiomC{$\myjud{\mytyb}{\mytyp}$}
+ \TrinaryInfC{$\myjud{\myITE{\mytmt}{\mytya}{\mytyb}}{\mytyp}$}
+ \DisplayProof
+ \end{tabular}
+}
+
+\mydesc{propositions:}{\myjud{\myprsyn}{\myprop}}{
+ \begin{tabular}{cc}
+ \AxiomC{\phantom{$\myjud{\myse{P}}{\myprop}$}}
+ \UnaryInfC{$\myjud{\mytop}{\myprop}$}
+ \noLine
+ \UnaryInfC{$\myjud{\mybot}{\myprop}$}
+ \DisplayProof
+ &
+ \AxiomC{$\myjud{\myse{P}}{\myprop}$}
+ \AxiomC{$\myjud{\myse{Q}}{\myprop}$}
+ \BinaryInfC{$\myjud{\myse{P} \myand \myse{Q}}{\myprop}$}
+ \noLine
+ \UnaryInfC{\phantom{$\myjud{\mybot}{\myprop}$}}
+ \DisplayProof
+ \end{tabular}
+
+ \myderivsp
+
+ \AxiomC{$\myjud{\myse{A}}{\mytyp}$}
+ \AxiomC{$\myjudd{\myctx; \myb{x} : \mytya}{\myse{P}}{\myprop}$}
+ \BinaryInfC{$\myjud{\myprfora{\myb{x}}{\mytya}{\myse{P}}}{\myprop}$}
+ \DisplayProof
+}
+
+Our foundation will be a type theory like the one of section
+\ref{sec:itt}, with only one level: $\mytyp_0$. In this context we will
+drop the $0$ and call $\mytyp_0$ $\mytyp$. Moreover, since the old
+$\myfun{if}\myarg\myfun{then}\myarg\myfun{else}$ was able to return
+types thanks to the hierarchy (which is gone), we need to reintroduce an
+ad-hoc conditional for types, where the reduction rule is the obvious
+one.
+
+However, we have an addition: a universe of \emph{propositions},
+$\myprop$. $\myprop$ isolates a fragment of types at large, and
+indeed we can `inject' any $\myprop$ back in $\mytyp$ with $\myprdec{\myarg}$: \\
+\mydesc{proposition decoding:}{\myprdec{\mytmsyn} \myred \mytmsyn}{
+ \begin{tabular}{cc}
+ $
+ \begin{array}{l@{\ }c@{\ }l}
+ \myprdec{\mybot} & \myred & \myempty \\
+ \myprdec{\mytop} & \myred & \myunit
+ \end{array}
+ $
+ &
+ $
+ \begin{array}{r@{ }c@{ }l@{\ }c@{\ }l}
+ \myprdec{&\myse{P} \myand \myse{Q} &} & \myred & \myprdec{\myse{P}} \myprod \myprdec{\myse{Q}} \\
+ \myprdec{&\myprfora{\myb{x}}{\mytya}{\myse{P}} &} & \myred &
+ \myfora{\myb{x}}{\mytya}{\myprdec{\myse{P}}}
+ \end{array}
+ $
+ \end{tabular}
+ } \\
+ Propositions are what we call the types of \emph{proofs}, or types
+ whose inhabitants contain no `data', much like $\myunit$. The goal of
+ doing this is twofold: erasing all top-level propositions when
+ compiling; and to identify all equivalent propositions as the same, as
+ we will see later.
+
+ Why did we choose what we have in $\myprop$? Given the above
+ criteria, $\mytop$ obviously fits the bill. A pair of propositions
+ $\myse{P} \myand \myse{Q}$ still won't get us data. Finally, if
+ $\myse{P}$ is a proposition and we have
+ $\myprfora{\myb{x}}{\mytya}{\myse{P}}$ , the decoding will be a
+ function which returns propositional content. The only threat is
+ $\mybot$, by which we can fabricate anything we want: however if we
+ are consistent there will be nothing of type $\mybot$ at the top
+ level, which is what we care about regarding proof erasure.
+
+\subsection{Equality proofs}
+
+\mydesc{syntax}{ }{
+ $
+ \begin{array}{r@{\ }c@{\ }l}
+ \mytmsyn & ::= & \cdots \mysynsep
+ \mycoee{\mytmsyn}{\mytmsyn}{\mytmsyn}{\mytmsyn} \mysynsep
+ \mycohh{\mytmsyn}{\mytmsyn}{\mytmsyn}{\mytmsyn} \\
+ \myprsyn & ::= & \cdots \mysynsep \mytmsyn \myeq \mytmsyn \mysynsep
+ \myjm{\mytmsyn}{\mytmsyn}{\mytmsyn}{\mytmsyn}
+ \end{array}
+ $
+}
+
+\mydesc{typing:}{\myjud{\mytmsyn}{\mytmsyn}}{
+ \begin{tabular}{cc}
+ \AxiomC{$\myjud{\myse{P}}{\myprdec{\mytya \myeq \mytyb}}$}
+ \AxiomC{$\myjud{\mytmt}{\mytya}$}
+ \BinaryInfC{$\myjud{\mycoee{\mytya}{\mytyb}{\myse{P}}{\mytmt}}{\mytyb}$}
+ \DisplayProof
+ &
+ \AxiomC{$\myjud{\myse{P}}{\myprdec{\mytya \myeq \mytyb}}$}
+ \AxiomC{$\myjud{\mytmt}{\mytya}$}
+ \BinaryInfC{$\myjud{\mycohh{\mytya}{\mytyb}{\myse{P}}{\mytmt}}{\myprdec{\myjm{\mytmt}{\mytya}{\mycoee{\mytya}{\mytyb}{\myse{P}}{\mytmt}}{\mytyb}}}$}
+ \DisplayProof
+
+ \end{tabular}
+}
+
+\mydesc{propositions:}{\myjud{\myprsyn}{\myprop}}{
+ \begin{tabular}{cc}
+ \AxiomC{$
+ \begin{array}{l}
+ \ \\
+ \myjud{\myse{A}}{\mytyp} \hspace{1cm} \myjud{\myse{B}}{\mytyp}
+ \end{array}
+ $}
+ \UnaryInfC{$\myjud{\mytya \myeq \mytyb}{\myprop}$}
+ \DisplayProof
+ &
+ \AxiomC{$
+ \begin{array}{c}
+ \myjud{\myse{A}}{\mytyp} \hspace{1cm} \myjud{\mytmm}{\myse{A}} \\
+ \myjud{\myse{B}}{\mytyp} \hspace{1cm} \myjud{\mytmn}{\myse{B}}
+ \end{array}
+ $}
+ \UnaryInfC{$\myjud{\myjm{\mytmm}{\myse{A}}{\mytmn}{\myse{B}}}{\myprop}$}
+ \DisplayProof
+
+ \end{tabular}
+}
+
+
+While isolating a propositional universe as presented can be a useful
+exercises on its own, what we are really after is a useful notion of
+equality. In OTT we want to maintain the notion that things judged to
+be equal are still always repleaceable for one another with no
+additional changes. Note that this is not the same as saying that they
+are definitionally equal, since as we saw extensionally equal functions,
+while satisfying the above requirement, are not definitionally equal.
+
+Towards this goal we introduce two equality constructs in
+$\myprop$---the fact that they are in $\myprop$ indicates that they
+indeed have no computational content. The first construct, $\myarg
+\myeq \myarg$, relates types, the second,
+$\myjm{\myarg}{\myarg}{\myarg}{\myarg}$, relates values. The
+value-level equality is different from our old propositional equality:
+instead of ranging over only one type, we might form equalities between
+values of different types---the usefulness of this construct will be
+clear soon. In the literature this equality is known as `heterogeneous'
+or `John Major', since
+
+\begin{quote}
+ John Major's `classless society' widened people's aspirations to
+ equality, but also the gap between rich and poor. After all, aspiring
+ to be equal to others than oneself is the politics of envy. In much
+ the same way, forms equations between members of any type, but they
+ cannot be treated as equals (ie substituted) unless they are of the
+ same type. Just as before, each thing is only equal to
+ itself. \citep{McBride1999}.
+\end{quote}
+
+Correspondingly, at the term level, $\myfun{coe}$ (`coerce') lets us
+transport values between equal types; and $\myfun{coh}$ (`coherence')
+guarantees that $\myfun{coe}$ respects the value-level equality, or in
+other words that it really has no computational component: if we
+transport $\mytmm : \mytya$ to $\mytmn : \mytyb$, $\mytmm$ and $\mytmn$
+will still be the same.
+
+Before introducing the core ideas that make OTT work, let us distinguish
+between \emph{canonical} and \emph{neutral} types. Canonical types are
+those arising from the ground types ($\myempty$, $\myunit$, $\mybool$)
+and the three type formers ($\myarr$, $\myprod$, $\mytyc{W}$). Neutral
+types are those formed by
+$\myfun{If}\myarg\myfun{Then}\myarg\myfun{Else}\myarg$.
+Correspondingly, canonical terms are those inhabiting canonical types
+($\mytt$, $\mytrue$, $\myfalse$, $\myabss{\myb{x}}{\mytya}{\mytmt}$,
+...), and neutral terms those formed by eliminators\footnote{Using the
+ terminology from section \ref{sec:types}, we'd say that canonical
+ terms are in \emph{weak head normal form}.}. In the current system
+(and hopefully in well-behaved systems), all closed terms reduce to a
+canonical term, and all canonical types are inhabited by canonical
+terms.
+
+\subsubsection{Type equality, and coercions}
+
+The plan is to decompose type-level equalities between canonical types
+into decodable propositions containing equalities regarding the
+subterms, and to use coerce recursively on the subterms using the
+generated equalities. This interplay between type equalities and
+\myfun{coe} ensures that invocations of $\myfun{coe}$ will vanish when
+we have evidence of the structural equality of the types we are
+transporting terms across. If the type is neutral, the equality won't
+reduce and thus $\myfun{coe}$ won't reduce either. If we come an
+equality between different canonical types, then we reduce the equality
+to bottom, making sure that no such proof can exist, and providing an
+`escape hatch' in $\myfun{coe}$.
+
+\begin{figure}[t]
+
+\mydesc{equality reduction:}{\myprsyn \myred \myprsyn}{
+ $
+ \begin{array}{c@{\ }c@{\ }c@{\ }l}
+ \myempty & \myeq & \myempty & \myred \mytop \\
+ \myunit & \myeq & \myunit & \myred \mytop \\
+ \mybool & \myeq & \mybool & \myred \mytop \\
+ \myexi{\myb{x_1}}{\mytya_1}{\mytyb_1} & \myeq & \myexi{\myb{x_2}}{\mytya_2}{\mytya_2} & \myred \\
+ \multicolumn{4}{l}{
+ \myind{2} \mytya_1 \myeq \mytyb_1 \myand
+ \myprfora{\myb{x_1}}{\mytya_1}{\myprfora{\myb{x_2}}{\mytya_2}{\myjm{\myb{x_1}}{\mytya_1}{\myb{x_2}}{\mytya_2}} \myimpl \mytyb_1[\myb{x_1}] \myeq \mytyb_2[\myb{x_2}]}
+ } \\
+ \myfora{\myb{x_1}}{\mytya_1}{\mytyb_1} & \myeq & \myfora{\myb{x_2}}{\mytya_2}{\mytyb_2} & \myred \cdots \\
+ \myw{\myb{x_1}}{\mytya_1}{\mytyb_1} & \myeq & \myw{\myb{x_2}}{\mytya_2}{\mytyb_2} & \myred \cdots \\
+ \mytya & \myeq & \mytyb & \myred \mybot\ \text{if $\mytya$ and $\mytyb$ are canonical.}
+ \end{array}
+ $
+}
+\myderivsp
+\mydesc{reduction}{\mytmsyn \myred \mytmsyn}{
+ $
+ \begin{array}[t]{@{}l@{\ }l@{\ }l@{\ }l@{\ }l@{\ }c@{\ }l@{\ }}
+ \mycoe & \myempty & \myempty & \myse{Q} & \myse{t} & \myred & \myse{t} \\
+ \mycoe & \myunit & \myunit & \myse{Q} & \mytt & \myred & \mytt \\
+ \mycoe & \mybool & \mybool & \myse{Q} & \mytrue & \myred & \mytrue \\
+ \mycoe & \mybool & \mybool & \myse{Q} & \myfalse & \myred & \myfalse \\
+ \mycoe & (\myexi{\myb{x_1}}{\mytya_1}{\mytyb_1}) &
+ (\myexi{\myb{x_2}}{\mytya_2}{\mytyb_2}) & \myse{Q} &
+ \mytmt_1 & \myred & \\
+ \multicolumn{7}{l}{
+ \myind{2}\begin{array}[t]{l@{\ }l@{\ }c@{\ }l}
+ \mysyn{let} & \myb{\mytmm_1} & \mapsto & \myapp{\myfst}{\mytmt_1} : \mytya_1 \\
+ & \myb{\mytmn_1} & \mapsto & \myapp{\mysnd}{\mytmt_1} : \mysub{\mytyb_1}{\myb{x_1}}{\myb{\mytmm_1}} \\
+ & \myb{Q_A} & \mapsto & \myapp{\myfst}{\myse{Q}} : \mytya_1 \myeq \mytya_2 \\
+ & \myb{\mytmm_2} & \mapsto & \mycoee{\mytya_1}{\mytya_2}{\myb{Q_A}}{\myb{\mytmm_1}} : \mytya_2 \\
+ & \myb{Q_B} & \mapsto & (\myapp{\mysnd}{\myse{Q}}) \myappsp \myb{\mytmm_1} \myappsp \myb{\mytmm_2} \myappsp (\mycohh{\mytya_1}{\mytya_2}{\myb{Q_A}}{\myb{\mytmm_1}}) : \\ & & & \myprdec{\mysub{\mytyb_1}{\myb{x_1}}{\myb{\mytmm_1}} \myeq \mysub{\mytyb_2}{\myb{x_2}}{\myb{\mytmm_2}}} \\
+ & \myb{\mytmn_2} & \mapsto & \mycoee{\mysub{\mytyb_1}{\myb{x_1}}{\myb{\mytmm_1}}}{\mysub{\mytyb_2}{\myb{x_2}}{\myb{\mytmm_2}}}{\myb{Q_B}}{\myb{\mytmn_1}} : \mysub{\mytyb_2}{\myb{x_2}}{\myb{\mytmm_2}} \\
+ \mysyn{in} & \multicolumn{3}{@{}l}{\mypair{\myb{\mytmm_2}}{\myb{\mytmn_2}}}
+ \end{array}} \\
+
+ \mycoe & (\myfora{\myb{x_1}}{\mytya_1}{\mytyb_1}) &
+ (\myfora{\myb{x_2}}{\mytya_2}{\mytyb_2}) & \myse{Q} &
+ \mytmt & \myred &
+ \cdots \\
+
+ \mycoe & (\myw{\myb{x_1}}{\mytya_1}{\mytyb_1}) &
+ (\myw{\myb{x_2}}{\mytya_2}{\mytyb_2}) & \myse{Q} &
+ \mytmt & \myred &
+ \cdots \\
+
+ \mycoe & \mytya & \mytyb & \myse{Q} & \mytmt & \myred & \\
+ \multicolumn{7}{l}{
+ \myind{2}\myapp{\myabsurd{\mytyb}}{\myse{Q}}\ \text{if $\mytya$ and $\mytyb$ are canonical.}
+ }
+ \end{array}
+ $
+}
+\caption{Reducing type equalities, and using them when
+ $\myfun{coe}$rcing.}
+\label{fig:eqred}
+\end{figure}
+
+Figure \ref{fig:eqred} illustrates this idea in practice. For ground
+types, the proof is the trivial element, and \myfun{coe} is the
+identity. For the three type binders, things are similar but subtly
+different---the choices we make in the type equality are dictated by
+the desire of writing the $\myfun{coe}$ in a natural way.
+
+$\myprod$ is the easiest case: we decompose the proof into proofs that
+the first element's types are equal ($\mytya_1 \myeq \mytya_2$), and a
+proof that given equal values in the first element, the types of the
+second elements are equal too
+($\myprfora{\myb{x_1}}{\mytya_1}{\myprfora{\myb{x_2}}{\mytya_2}{\myjm{\myb{x_1}}{\mytya_1}{\myb{x_2}}{\mytya_2}}
+ \myimpl \mytyb_1 \myeq \mytyb_2}$)\footnote{We are using $\myimpl$ to
+ indicate a $\forall$ where we discard the first value. We write
+ $\mytyb_1[\myb{x_1}]$ to indicate that the $\myb{x_1}$ in $\mytyb_1$
+ is re-bound to the $\myb{x_1}$ quantified by the $\forall$, and
+ similarly for $\myb{x_2}$ and $\mytyb_2$.}. This also explains the
+need for heterogeneous equality, since in the second proof it would be
+awkward to express the fact that $\myb{A_1}$ is the same as $\myb{A_2}$.
+In the respective $\myfun{coe}$ case, since the types are canonical, we
+know at this point that the proof of equality is a pair of the shape
+described above. Thus, we can immediately coerce the first element of
+the pair using the first element of the proof, and then instantiate the
+second element with the two first elements and a proof by coherence of
+their equality, since we know that the types are equal. The cases for
+the other binders are omitted for brevity, but they follow the same
+principle.
+
+\subsubsection{$\myfun{coe}$, laziness, and $\myfun{coh}$erence}
+
+It is important to notice that in the reduction rules for $\myfun{coe}$
+are never obstructed by the proofs: with the exception of comparisons
+between different canonical types we never pattern match on the pairs,
+but always look at the projections. This means that, as long as we are
+consistent, and thus as long as we don't have $\mybot$-inducing proofs,
+we can add propositional axioms for equality and $\myfun{coe}$ will
+still compute. Thus, we can take $\myfun{coh}$ as axiomatic, and we can
+add back familiar useful equality rules:
+
+\mydesc{typing:}{\myjud{\mytmsyn}{\mytmsyn}}{
+ \AxiomC{$\myjud{\mytmt}{\mytya}$}
+ \UnaryInfC{$\myjud{\myapp{\myrefl}{\mytmt}}{\myprdec{\myjm{\myb{x}}{\myb{\mytya}}{\myb{x}}{\myb{\mytya}}}}$}
+ \DisplayProof
+
+ \myderivsp
+
+ \AxiomC{$\myjud{\mytya}{\mytyp}$}
+ \AxiomC{$\myjudd{\myctx; \myb{x} : \mytya}{\mytyb}{\mytyp}$}
+ \BinaryInfC{$\myjud{\mytyc{R} \myappsp (\myb{x} {:} \mytya) \myappsp \mytyb}{\myfora{\myb{y}\, \myb{z}}{\mytya}{\myprdec{\myjm{\myb{y}}{\mytya}{\myb{z}}{\mytya} \myimpl \mysub{\mytyb}{\myb{x}}{\myb{y}} \myeq \mysub{\mytyb}{\myb{x}}{\myb{z}}}}}$}
+ \DisplayProof
+}
+
+$\myrefl$ is the equivalent of the reflexivity rule in propositional
+equality, and $\mytyc{R}$ asserts that if we have a we have a $\mytyp$
+abstracting over a value we can substitute equal for equal---this lets
+us recover $\myfun{subst}$. Note that while we need to provide ad-hoc
+rules in the restricted, non-hierarchical theory that we have, if our
+theory supports abstraction over $\mytyp$s we can easily add these
+axioms as abstracted variables.
+
+\subsubsection{Value-level equality}
+
+\mydesc{equality reduction:}{\myprsyn \myred \myprsyn}{
+ $
+ \begin{array}{r@{ }c@{\ }c@{\ }c@{}l@{\ }c@{\ }r@{}c@{\ }c@{\ }c@{}l@{\ }l}
+ (&\mytmt_1 & : & \myempty&) & \myeq & (&\mytmt_2 & : & \myempty &) & \myred \mytop \\
+ (&\mytmt_1 & : & \myempty&) & \myeq & (&\mytmt_2 & : & \myempty&) & \myred \mytop \\
+ (&\mytrue & : & \mybool&) & \myeq & (&\mytrue & : & \mybool&) & \myred \mytop \\
+ (&\myfalse & : & \mybool&) & \myeq & (&\myfalse & : & \mybool&) & \myred \mytop \\
+ (&\mytmt_1 & : & \mybool&) & \myeq & (&\mytmt_1 & : & \mybool&) & \myred \mybot \\
+ (&\mytmt_1 & : & \myexi{\mytya_1}{\myb{x_1}}{\mytyb_1}&) & \myeq & (&\mytmt_2 & : & \myexi{\mytya_2}{\myb{x_2}}{\mytyb_2}&) & \myred \\
+ & \multicolumn{11}{@{}l}{
+ \myind{2} \myjm{\myapp{\myfst}{\mytmt_1}}{\mytya_1}{\myapp{\myfst}{\mytmt_2}}{\mytya_2} \myand
+ \myjm{\myapp{\mysnd}{\mytmt_1}}{\mysub{\mytyb_1}{\myb{x_1}}{\myapp{\myfst}{\mytmt_1}}}{\myapp{\mysnd}{\mytmt_2}}{\mysub{\mytyb_2}{\myb{x_2}}{\myapp{\myfst}{\mytmt_2}}}
+ } \\
+ (&\myse{f}_1 & : & \myfora{\mytya_1}{\myb{x_1}}{\mytyb_1}&) & \myeq & (&\myse{f}_2 & : & \myfora{\mytya_2}{\myb{x_2}}{\mytyb_2}&) & \myred \\
+ & \multicolumn{11}{@{}l}{
+ \myind{2} \myprfora{\myb{x_1}}{\mytya_1}{\myprfora{\myb{x_2}}{\mytya_2}{
+ \myjm{\myb{x_1}}{\mytya_1}{\myb{x_2}}{\mytya_2} \myimpl
+ \myjm{\myapp{\myse{f}_1}{\myb{x_1}}}{\mytyb_1[\myb{x_1}]}{\myapp{\myse{f}_2}{\myb{x_2}}}{\mytyb_2[\myb{x_2}]}
+ }}
+ } \\
+ (&\mytmt_1 \mynodee \myse{f}_1 & : & \myw{\mytya_1}{\myb{x_1}}{\mytyb_1}&) & \myeq & (&\mytmt_1 \mynodee \myse{f}_1 & : & \myw{\mytya_2}{\myb{x_2}}{\mytyb_2}&) & \myred \cdots \\
+ (&\mytmt_1 & : & \mytya_1&) & \myeq & (&\mytmt_2 & : & \mytya_2 &) & \myred \\
+ & \multicolumn{11}{@{}l}{
+ \myind{2} \mybot\ \text{if $\mytya_1$ and $\mytya_2$ are canonical.}
+ }
+ \end{array}
+ $
+}
-\section{Kant}
-\label{sec:kant}
+As with type-level equality, we want value-level equality to reduce
+based on the structure of the compared terms.
+
+\subsection{Proof irrelevance}
+
+% \section{Augmenting ITT}
+% \label{sec:practical}
+
+% \subsection{A more liberal hierarchy}
+
+% \subsection{Type inference}
+
+% \subsubsection{Bidirectional type checking}
+
+% \subsubsection{Pattern unification}
+
+% \subsection{Pattern matching and explicit fixpoints}
+
+% \subsection{Induction-recursion}
+
+% \subsection{Coinduction}
+
+% \subsection{Dealing with partiality}
+
+% \subsection{Type holes}
+
+\section{\mykant : the theory}
+\label{sec:kant-theory}
+
+\mykant\ is an interactive theorem prover developed as part of this thesis.
+The plan is to present a core language which would be capable of serving as
+the basis for a more featureful system, while still presenting interesting
+features and more importantly observational equality.
+
+The author learnt the hard way the implementations challenges for such a
+project, and while there is a solid and working base to work on, observational
+equality is not currently implemented. However, a detailed plan on how to add
+it this functionality is provided, and should not prove to be too much work.
+
+The features currently implemented in \mykant\ are:
+
+\begin{description}
+\item[Full dependent types] As we would expect, we have dependent a system
+ which is as expressive as the `best' corner in the lambda cube described in
+ section \ref{sec:itt}.
+
+\item[Implicit, cumulative universe hierarchy] The user does not need to
+ specify universe level explicitly, and universes are \emph{cumulative}.
+
+\item[User defined data types and records] Instead of forcing the user to
+ choose from a restricted toolbox, we let her define inductive data types,
+ with associated primitive recursion operators; or records, with associated
+ projections for each field.
+
+\item[Bidirectional type checking] While no `fancy' inference via unification
+ is present, we take advantage of an type synthesis system in the style of
+ \cite{Pierce2000}, extending the concept for user defined data types.
+
+\item[Type holes] When building up programs interactively, it is useful to
+ leave parts unfinished while exploring the current context. This is what
+ type holes are for.
+\end{description}
+
+The planned features are:
+
+\begin{description}
+\item[Observational equality] As described in section \ref{sec:ott} but
+ extended to work with the type hierarchy and to admit equality between
+ arbitrary data types.
+
+\item[Coinductive data] ...
+\end{description}
+
+We will analyse the features one by one, along with motivations and tradeoffs
+for the design decisions made.
+
+\subsection{Bidirectional type checking}
+
+We start by describing bidirectional type checking since it calls for fairly
+different typing rules that what we have seen up to now. The idea is to have
+two kind of terms: terms for which a type can always be inferred, and terms
+that need to be checked against a type. A nice observation is that this
+duality runs through the semantics of the terms: data destructors (function
+application, record projections, primitive re cursors) \emph{infer} types,
+while data constructors (abstractions, record/data types data constructors)
+need to be checked. In the literature these terms are respectively known as
+
+To introduce the concept and notation, we will revisit the STLC in a
+bidirectional style. The presentation follows \cite{Loh2010}.
+
+% TODO do this --- is it even necessary
+
+% The syntax of
+
+\subsection{Base terms and types}
+
+Let us begin by describing the primitives available without the user
+defining any data types, and without equality. The way we handle
+variables and substitution is left unspecified, and explained in section
+\ref{sec:term-repr}, along with other implementation issues. We are
+also going to give an account of the implicit type hierarchy separately
+in section \ref{sec:term-hierarchy}, so as not to clutter derivation
+rules too much, and just treat types as impredicative for the time
+being.
+
+\mydesc{syntax}{ }{
+ $
+ \begin{array}{r@{\ }c@{\ }l}
+ \mytmsyn & ::= & \mynamesyn \mysynsep \mytyp \\
+ & | & \myfora{\myb{x}}{\mytmsyn}{\mytmsyn} \mysynsep
+ \myabs{\myb{x}}{\mytmsyn} \mysynsep
+ (\myapp{\mytmsyn}{\mytmsyn}) \mysynsep
+ (\myann{\mytmsyn}{\mytmsyn}) \\
+ \mynamesyn & ::= & \myb{x} \mysynsep \myfun{f}
+ \end{array}
+ $
+}
+
+The syntax for our calculus includes just two basic constructs:
+abstractions and $\mytyp$s. Everything else will be provided by
+user-definable constructs. Since we let the user define values, we will
+need a context capable of carrying the body of variables along with
+their type. Bound names and defined names are treated separately in the
+syntax, and while both can be associated to a type in the context, only
+defined names can be associated with a body:
+
+\mydesc{context validity:}{\myvalid{\myctx}}{
+ \begin{tabular}{ccc}
+ \AxiomC{\phantom{$\myjud{\mytya}{\mytyp_l}$}}
+ \UnaryInfC{$\myvalid{\myemptyctx}$}
+ \DisplayProof
+ &
+ \AxiomC{$\myjud{\mytya}{\mytyp}$}
+ \AxiomC{$\mynamesyn \not\in \myctx$}
+ \BinaryInfC{$\myvalid{\myctx ; \mynamesyn : \mytya}$}
+ \DisplayProof
+ &
+ \AxiomC{$\myjud{\mytmt}{\mytya}$}
+ \AxiomC{$\myfun{f} \not\in \myctx$}
+ \BinaryInfC{$\myvalid{\myctx ; \myfun{f} \mapsto \mytmt : \mytya}$}
+ \DisplayProof
+ \end{tabular}
+}
+
+Now we can present the reduction rules, which are unsurprising. We have
+the usual function application ($\beta$-reduction), but also a rule to
+replace names with their bodies ($\delta$-reduction), and one to discard
+type annotations. For this reason reduction is done in-context, as
+opposed to what we have seen in the past:
+
+\mydesc{reduction:}{\myctx \vdash \mytmsyn \myred \mytmsyn}{
+ \begin{tabular}{ccc}
+ \AxiomC{\phantom{$\myb{x} \mapsto \mytmt : \mytya \in \myctx$}}
+ \UnaryInfC{$\myctx \vdash \myapp{(\myabs{\myb{x}}{\mytmm})}{\mytmn}
+ \myred \mysub{\mytmm}{\myb{x}}{\mytmn}$}
+ \DisplayProof
+ &
+ \AxiomC{$\myfun{f} \mapsto \mytmt : \mytya \in \myctx$}
+ \UnaryInfC{$\myctx \vdash \myfun{f} \myred \mytmt$}
+ \DisplayProof
+ &
+ \AxiomC{\phantom{$\myb{x} \mapsto \mytmt : \mytya \in \myctx$}}
+ \UnaryInfC{$\myctx \vdash \myann{\mytmm}{\mytya} \myred \mytmm$}
+ \DisplayProof
+ \end{tabular}
+}
+
+We can now give types to our terms. The type of names, both defined and
+abstract, is inferred. The type of applications is inferred too,
+propagating types down the applied term. Abstractions are checked.
+Finally, we have a rule to check the type of an inferrable term. We
+defer the question of term equality (which is needed for type checking)
+to section \label{sec:kant-irr}.
+
+\mydesc{typing:}{\myctx \vdash \mytmsyn \Leftrightarrow \mytmsyn}{
+ \begin{tabular}{ccc}
+ \AxiomC{$\myse{name} : A \in \myctx$}
+ \UnaryInfC{$\myinf{\myse{name}}{A}$}
+ \DisplayProof
+ &
+ \AxiomC{$\myfun{f} \mapsto \mytmt : A \in \myctx$}
+ \UnaryInfC{$\myinf{\myfun{f}}{A}$}
+ \DisplayProof
+ &
+ \AxiomC{$\myinf{\mytmt}{\mytya}$}
+ \UnaryInfC{$\mychk{\myann{\mytmt}{\mytya}}{\mytya}$}
+ \DisplayProof
+ \end{tabular}
+ \myderivsp
+
+ \begin{tabular}{ccc}
+ \AxiomC{$\myinf{\mytmm}{\myfora{\myb{x}}{\mytya}{\mytyb}}$}
+ \AxiomC{$\mychk{\mytmn}{\mytya}$}
+ \BinaryInfC{$\myinf{\myapp{\mytmm}{\mytmn}}{\mysub{\mytyb}{\myb{x}}{\mytmn}}$}
+ \DisplayProof
+
+ &
+
+ \AxiomC{$\mychkk{\myctx; \myb{x}: \mytya}{\mytmt}{\mytyb}$}
+ \UnaryInfC{$\mychk{\myabs{\myb{x}}{\mytmt}}{\myfora{\myb{x}}{\mytyb}{\mytyb}}$}
+ \DisplayProof
+ \end{tabular}
+}
+
+\subsection{Elaboration}
+
+As we mentioned, $\mykant$\ allows the user to define not only values
+but also custom data types and records. \emph{Elaboration} consists of
+turning these declarations into workable syntax, types, and reduction
+rules. The treatment of custom types in $\mykant$\ is heavily inspired
+by McBride and McKinna early work on Epigram \citep{McBride2004},
+although with some differences.
+
+\subsubsection{Term vectors, telescopes, and assorted notation}
+
+We use a vector notation to refer to a series of term applied to
+another, for example $\mytyc{D} \myappsp \vec{A}$ is a shorthand for
+$\mytyc{D} \myappsp \mytya_1 \cdots \mytya_n$, for some $n$. $n$ is
+consistently used to refer to the length of such vectors, and $i$ to
+refer to an index in such vectors. We also often need to `build up'
+terms vectors, in which case we use $\myemptyctx$ for an empty vector
+and add elements to an existing vector with $\myarg ; \myarg$, similarly
+to what we do for context.
+
+To present the elaboration and operations on user defined data types, we
+frequently make use what de Bruijn called \emph{telescopes}
+\citep{Bruijn91}, a construct that will prove useful when dealing with
+the types of type and data constructors. A telescope is a series of
+nested typed bindings, such as $(\myb{x} {:} \mynat); (\myb{p} :
+\myapp{\myfun{even}}{\myb{x}})$. Consistently with the notation for
+contexts and term vectors, we use $\myemptyctx$ to denote an empty
+telescope and $\myarg ; \myarg$ to add a new binding to an existing
+telescope.
+
+We refer to telescopes with $\mytele$, $\mytele'$, $\mytele_i$, etc. If
+$\mytele$ refers to a telescope, $\mytelee$ refers to the term vector
+made up of all the variables bound by $\mytele$. $\mytele \myarr
+\mytya$ refers to the type made by turning the telescope into a series
+of $\myarr$. Returning to the examples above, we have that
+{\small\[
+ (\myb{x} {:} \mynat); (\myb{p} : \myapp{\myfun{even}}{\myb{x}}) \myarr \mynat =
+ (\myb{x} {:} \mynat) \myarr (\myb{p} : \myapp{\myfun{even}}{\myb{x}}) \myarr \mynat
+\]}
+
+We make use of various operations to manipulate telescopes:
+\begin{itemize}
+\item $\myhead(\mytele)$ refers to the first type appearing in
+ $\mytele$: $\myhead((\myb{x} {:} \mynat); (\myb{p} :
+ \myapp{\myfun{even}}{\myb{x}})) = \mynat$. Similarly,
+ $\myix_i(\mytele)$ refers to the $i^{th}$ type in a telescope
+ (1-indexed).
+\item $\mytake_i(\mytele)$ refers to the telescope created by taking the
+ first $i$ elements of $\mytele$: $\mytake_1((\myb{x} {:} \mynat); (\myb{p} :
+ \myapp{\myfun{even}}{\myb{x}})) = (\myb{x} {:} \mynat)$
+\item $\mytele \vec{A}$ refers to the telescope made by `applying' the
+ terms in $\vec{A}$ on $\mytele$: $((\myb{x} {:} \mynat); (\myb{p} :
+ \myapp{\myfun{even}}{\myb{x}}))42 = (\myb{p} :
+ \myapp{\myfun{even}}{42})$.
+\end{itemize}
+
+\subsubsection{Declarations syntax}
+
+\mydesc{syntax}{ }{
+ $
+ \begin{array}{r@{\ }c@{\ }l}
+ \mydeclsyn & ::= & \myval{\myb{x}}{\mytmsyn}{\mytmsyn} \\
+ & | & \mypost{\myb{x}}{\mytmsyn} \\
+ & | & \myadt{\mytyc{D}}{\mytelesyn}{}{\mydc{c} : \mytelesyn\ |\ \cdots } \\
+ & | & \myreco{\mytyc{D}}{\mytelesyn}{}{\myfun{f} : \mytmsyn,\ \cdots } \\
+
+ \mytelesyn & ::= & \myemptytele \mysynsep \mytelesyn \mycc (\myb{x} {:} \mytmsyn) \\
+ \mynamesyn & ::= & \cdots \mysynsep \mytyc{D} \mysynsep \mytyc{D}.\mydc{c} \mysynsep \mytyc{D}.\myfun{f}
+ \end{array}
+ $
+}
+
+In \mykant\ we have four kind of declarations:
+
+\begin{description}
+\item[Defined value] A variable, together with a type and a body.
+\item[Abstract variable] An abstract variable, with a type but no body.
+\item[Inductive data] A datatype, with a type constructor and various data
+ constructors---somewhat similar to what we find in Haskell. A primitive
+ recursor (or `destructor') will be generated automatically.
+\item[Record] A record, which consists of one data constructor and various
+ fields, with no recursive occurrences.
+\end{description}
+
+Elaborating defined variables consists of type checking body against the
+given type, and updating the context to contain the new binding.
+Elaborating abstract variables and abstract variables consists of type
+checking the type, and updating the context with a new typed variable:
+
+\mydesc{context elaboration:}{\myelab{\mydeclsyn}{\myctx}}{
+ \begin{tabular}{cc}
+ \AxiomC{$\myjud{\mytmt}{\mytya}$}
+ \AxiomC{$\myfun{f} \not\in \myctx$}
+ \BinaryInfC{
+ $\myctx \myelabt \myval{\myfun{f}}{\mytya}{\mytmt} \ \ \myelabf\ \ \myctx; \myfun{f} \mapsto \mytmt : \mytya$
+ }
+ \DisplayProof
+ &
+ \AxiomC{$\myjud{\mytya}{\mytyp}$}
+ \AxiomC{$\myfun{f} \not\in \myctx$}
+ \BinaryInfC{
+ $
+ \myctx \myelabt \mypost{\myfun{f}}{\mytya}
+ \ \ \myelabf\ \ \myctx; \myfun{f} : \mytya
+ $
+ }
+ \DisplayProof
+ \end{tabular}
+}
+
+\subsubsection{User defined types}
+\label{sec:user-type}
+
+Elaborating user defined types is the real effort. First, let's explain
+what we can defined, with some examples.
+
+\begin{description}
+\item[Natural numbers] To define natural numbers, we create a data type
+ with two constructors: one with zero arguments ($\mydc{zero}$) and one
+ with one recursive argument ($\mydc{suc}$):
+ {\small\[
+ \begin{array}{@{}l}
+ \myadt{\mynat}{ }{ }{
+ \mydc{zero} \mydcsep \mydc{suc} \myappsp \mynat
+ }
+ \end{array}
+ \]}
+ This is very similar to what we would write in Haskell:
+ {\small\[\text{\texttt{data Nat = Zero | Suc Nat}}\]}
+ Once the data type is defined, $\mykant$\ will generate syntactic
+ constructs for the type and data constructors, so that we will have
+ \begin{center}
+ \small
+ \begin{tabular}{ccc}
+ \AxiomC{\phantom{$\mychk{\mytmt}{\mynat}$}}
+ \UnaryInfC{$\myinf{\mynat}{\mytyp}$}
+ \DisplayProof
+ &
+ \AxiomC{\phantom{$\mychk{\mytmt}{\mynat}$}}
+ \UnaryInfC{$\myinf{\mytyc{\mynat}.\mydc{zero}}{\mynat}$}
+ \DisplayProof
+ &
+ \AxiomC{$\mychk{\mytmt}{\mynat}$}
+ \UnaryInfC{$\myinf{\mytyc{\mynat}.\mydc{suc} \myappsp \mytmt}{\mynat}$}
+ \DisplayProof
+ \end{tabular}
+ \end{center}
+ While in Haskell (or indeed in Agda or Coq) data constructors are
+ treated the same way as functions, in $\mykant$\ they are syntax, so
+ for example using $\mytyc{\mynat}.\mydc{suc}$ on its own will be a
+ syntax error. This is necessary so that we can easily infer the type
+ of polymorphic data constructors, as we will see later.
+
+ Moreover, each data constructor is prefixed by the type constructor
+ name, since we need to retrieve the type constructor of a data
+ constructor when type checking. This measure aids in the presentation
+ of various features but it is not needed in the implementation, where
+ we can have a dictionary to lookup the type constructor corresponding
+ to each data constructor. When using data constructors in examples I
+ will omit the type constructor prefix for brevity.
+
+ Along with user defined constructors, $\mykant$\ automatically
+ generates an \emph{eliminator}, or \emph{destructor}, to compute with
+ natural numbers: If we have $\mytmt : \mynat$, we can destruct
+ $\mytmt$ using the generated eliminator `$\mynat.\myfun{elim}$':
+ \begin{prooftree}
+ \small
+ \AxiomC{$\mychk{\mytmt}{\mynat}$}
+ \UnaryInfC{$
+ \myinf{\mytyc{\mynat}.\myfun{elim} \myappsp \mytmt}{
+ \begin{array}{@{}l}
+ \myfora{\myb{P}}{\mynat \myarr \mytyp}{ \\ \myapp{\myb{P}}{\mydc{zero}} \myarr (\myfora{\myb{x}}{\mynat}{\myapp{\myb{P}}{\myb{x}} \myarr \myapp{\myb{P}}{(\myapp{\mydc{suc}}{\myb{x}})}}) \myarr \\ \myapp{\myb{P}}{\mytmt}}
+ \end{array}
+ }$}
+ \end{prooftree}
+ $\mynat.\myfun{elim}$ corresponds to the induction principle for
+ natural numbers: if we have a predicate on numbers ($\myb{P}$), and we
+ know that predicate holds for the base case
+ ($\myapp{\myb{P}}{\mydc{zero}}$) and for each inductive step
+ ($\myfora{\myb{x}}{\mynat}{\myapp{\myb{P}}{\myb{x}} \myarr
+ \myapp{\myb{P}}{(\myapp{\mydc{suc}}{\myb{x}})}}$), then $\myb{P}$
+ holds for any number. As with the data constructors, we require the
+ eliminator to be applied to the `destructed' element.
+
+ While the induction principle is usually seen as a mean to prove
+ properties about numbers, in the intuitionistic setting it is also a
+ mean to compute. In this specific case we will $\mynat.\myfun{elim}$
+ will return the base case if the provided number is $\mydc{zero}$, and
+ recursively apply the inductive step if the number is a
+ $\mydc{suc}$cessor:
+ {\small\[
+ \begin{array}{@{}l@{}l}
+ \mytyc{\mynat}.\myfun{elim} \myappsp \mydc{zero} & \myappsp \myse{P} \myappsp \myse{pz} \myappsp \myse{ps} \myred \myse{pz} \\
+ \mytyc{\mynat}.\myfun{elim} \myappsp (\mydc{suc} \myappsp \mytmt) & \myappsp \myse{P} \myappsp \myse{pz} \myappsp \myse{ps} \myred \myse{ps} \myappsp \mytmt \myappsp (\mynat.\myfun{elim} \myappsp \mytmt \myappsp \myse{P} \myappsp \myse{pz} \myappsp \myse{ps})
+ \end{array}
+ \]}
+ The Haskell equivalent would be
+ {\small\[
+ \begin{array}{@{}l}
+ \text{\texttt{elim :: Nat -> a -> (Nat -> a -> a) -> a}}\\
+ \text{\texttt{elim Zero pz ps = pz}}\\
+ \text{\texttt{elim (Suc n) pz ps = ps n (elim n pz ps)}}
+ \end{array}
+ \]}
+ Which buys us the computational behaviour, but not the reasoning power.
+ % TODO maybe more examples, e.g. Haskell eliminator and fibonacci
+
+\item[Binary trees] Now for a polymorphic data type: binary trees, since
+ lists are too similar to natural numbers to be interesting.
+ {\small\[
+ \begin{array}{@{}l}
+ \myadt{\mytree}{\myappsp (\myb{A} {:} \mytyp)}{ }{
+ \mydc{leaf} \mydcsep \mydc{node} \myappsp (\myapp{\mytree}{\myb{A}}) \myappsp \myb{A} \myappsp (\myapp{\mytree}{\myb{A}})
+ }
+ \end{array}
+ \]}
+ Now the purpose of constructors as syntax can be explained: what would
+ the type of $\mydc{leaf}$ be? If we were to treat it as a `normal'
+ term, we would have to specify the type parameter of the tree each
+ time the constructor is applied:
+ {\small\[
+ \begin{array}{@{}l@{\ }l}
+ \mydc{leaf} & : \myfora{\myb{A}}{\mytyp}{\myapp{\mytree}{\myb{A}}} \\
+ \mydc{node} & : \myfora{\myb{A}}{\mytyp}{\myapp{\mytree}{\myb{A}} \myarr \myb{A} \myarr \myapp{\mytree}{\myb{A}} \myarr \myapp{\mytree}{\myb{A}}}
+ \end{array}
+ \]}
+ The problem with this approach is that creating terms is incredibly
+ verbose and dull, since we would need to specify the type parameters
+ each time. For example if we wished to create a $\mytree \myappsp
+ \mynat$ with two nodes and three leaves, we would have to write
+ {\small\[
+ \mydc{node} \myappsp \mynat \myappsp (\mydc{node} \myappsp \mynat \myappsp (\mydc{leaf} \myappsp \mynat) \myappsp (\myapp{\mydc{suc}}{\mydc{zero}}) \myappsp (\mydc{leaf} \myappsp \mynat)) \myappsp \mydc{zero} \myappsp (\mydc{leaf} \myappsp \mynat)
+ \]}
+ The redundancy of $\mynat$s is quite irritating. Instead, if we treat
+ constructors as syntactic elements, we can `extract' the type of the
+ parameter from the type that the term gets checked against, much like
+ we get the type of abstraction arguments:
+ \begin{center}
+ \small
+ \begin{tabular}{cc}
+ \AxiomC{$\mychk{\mytya}{\mytyp}$}
+ \UnaryInfC{$\mychk{\mydc{leaf}}{\myapp{\mytree}{\mytya}}$}
+ \DisplayProof
+ &
+ \AxiomC{$\mychk{\mytmm}{\mytree \myappsp \mytya}$}
+ \AxiomC{$\mychk{\mytmt}{\mytya}$}
+ \AxiomC{$\mychk{\mytmm}{\mytree \myappsp \mytya}$}
+ \TrinaryInfC{$\mychk{\mydc{node} \myappsp \mytmm \myappsp \mytmt \myappsp \mytmn}{\mytree \myappsp \mytya}$}
+ \DisplayProof
+ \end{tabular}
+ \end{center}
+ Which enables us to write, much more concisely
+ {\small\[
+ \mydc{node} \myappsp (\mydc{node} \myappsp \mydc{leaf} \myappsp (\myapp{\mydc{suc}}{\mydc{zero}}) \myappsp \mydc{leaf}) \myappsp \mydc{zero} \myappsp \mydc{leaf} : \myapp{\mytree}{\mynat}
+ \]}
+ We gain an annotation, but we lose the myriad of types applied to the
+ constructors. Conversely, with the eliminator for $\mytree$, we can
+ infer the type of the arguments given the type of the destructed:
+ \begin{prooftree}
+ \footnotesize
+ \AxiomC{$\myinf{\mytmt}{\myapp{\mytree}{\mytya}}$}
+ \UnaryInfC{$
+ \myinf{\mytree.\myfun{elim} \myappsp \mytmt}{
+ \begin{array}{@{}l}
+ (\myb{P} {:} \myapp{\mytree}{\mytya} \myarr \mytyp) \myarr \\
+ \myapp{\myb{P}}{\mydc{leaf}} \myarr \\
+ ((\myb{l} {:} \myapp{\mytree}{\mytya}) (\myb{x} {:} \mytya) (\myb{r} {:} \myapp{\mytree}{\mytya}) \myarr \myapp{\myb{P}}{\myb{l}} \myarr
+ \myapp{\myb{P}}{\myb{r}} \myarr \myb{P} \myappsp (\mydc{node} \myappsp \myb{l} \myappsp \myb{x} \myappsp \myb{r})) \myarr \\
+ \myapp{\myb{P}}{\mytmt}
+ \end{array}
+ }
+ $}
+ \end{prooftree}
+ As expected, the eliminator embodies structural induction on trees.
+
+\item[Empty type] We have presented types that have at least one
+ constructors, but nothing prevents us from defining types with
+ \emph{no} constructors:
+ {\small\[
+ \myadt{\mytyc{Empty}}{ }{ }{ }
+ \]}
+ What shall the `induction principle' on $\mytyc{Empty}$ be? Does it
+ even make sense to talk about induction on $\mytyc{Empty}$?
+ $\mykant$\ does not care, and generates an eliminator with no `cases',
+ and thus corresponding to the $\myfun{absurd}$ that we know and love:
+ \begin{prooftree}
+ \small
+ \AxiomC{$\myinf{\mytmt}{\mytyc{Empty}}$}
+ \UnaryInfC{$\myinf{\myempty.\myfun{elim} \myappsp \mytmt}{(\myb{P} {:} \mytmt \myarr \mytyp) \myarr \myapp{\myb{P}}{\mytmt}}$}
+ \end{prooftree}
+
+\item[Ordered lists] Up to this point, the examples shown are nothing
+ new to the \{Haskell, SML, OCaml, functional\} programmer. However
+ dependent types let us express much more than
+ % TODO
+
+\item[Dependent products] Apart from $\mysyn{data}$, $\mykant$\ offers
+ us another way to define types: $\mysyn{record}$. A record is a
+ datatype with one constructor and `projections' to extract specific
+ fields of the said constructor.
+
+ For example, we can recover dependent products:
+ {\small\[
+ \begin{array}{@{}l}
+ \myreco{\mytyc{Prod}}{\myappsp (\myb{A} {:} \mytyp) \myappsp (\myb{B} {:} \myb{A} \myarr \mytyp)}{\\ \myind{2}}{\myfst : \myb{A}, \mysnd : \myapp{\myb{B}}{\myb{fst}}}
+ \end{array}
+ \]}
+ Here $\myfst$ and $\mysnd$ are the projections, with their respective
+ types. Note that each field can refer to the preceding fields. A
+ constructor will be automatically generated, under the name of
+ $\mytyc{Prod}.\mydc{constr}$. Dually to data types, we will omit the
+ type constructor prefix for record projections.
+
+ Following the bidirectionality of the system, we have that projections
+ (the destructors of the record) infer the type, while the constructor
+ gets checked:
+ \begin{center}
+ \small
+ \begin{tabular}{cc}
+ \AxiomC{$\mychk{\mytmm}{\mytya}$}
+ \AxiomC{$\mychk{\mytmn}{\myapp{\mytyb}{\mytmm}}$}
+ \BinaryInfC{$\mychk{\mytyc{Prod}.\mydc{constr} \myappsp \mytmm \myappsp \mytmn}{\mytyc{Prod} \myappsp \mytya \myappsp \mytyb}$}
+ \noLine
+ \UnaryInfC{\phantom{$\myinf{\myfun{snd} \myappsp \mytmt}{\mytyb \myappsp (\myfst \myappsp \mytmt)}$}}
+ \DisplayProof
+ &
+ \AxiomC{$\myinf{\mytmt}{\mytyc{Prod} \myappsp \mytya \myappsp \mytyb}$}
+ \UnaryInfC{$\myinf{\myfun{fst} \myappsp \mytmt}{\mytya}$}
+ \noLine
+ \UnaryInfC{$\myinf{\myfun{snd} \myappsp \mytmt}{\mytyb \myappsp (\myfst \myappsp \mytmt)}$}
+ \DisplayProof
+ \end{tabular}
+ \end{center}
+ What we have is equivalent to ITT's dependent products.
+\end{description}
+
+\begin{figure}[p]
+ \begin{subfigure}[b]{\textwidth}
+ \vspace{-1cm}
+ \mydesc{syntax}{ }{
+ \footnotesize
+ $
+ \begin{array}{l}
+ \mynamesyn ::= \cdots \mysynsep \mytyc{D} \mysynsep \mytyc{D}.\mydc{c} \mysynsep \mytyc{D}.\myfun{f}
+ \end{array}
+ $
+ }
+
+ \mydesc{syntax elaboration:}{\mydeclsyn \myelabf \mytmsyn ::= \cdots}{
+ \footnotesize
+ $
+ \begin{array}{r@{\ }l}
+ & \myadt{\mytyc{D}}{\mytele}{}{\cdots\ |\ \mydc{c}_n : \mytele_n } \\
+ \myelabf &
+
+ \begin{array}{r@{\ }c@{\ }l}
+ \mytmsyn & ::= & \cdots \mysynsep \myapp{\mytyc{D}}{\mytmsyn^{\mytele}} \mysynsep \cdots \mysynsep
+ \mytyc{D}.\mydc{c}_n \myappsp \mytmsyn^{\mytele_n} \mysynsep \mytyc{D}.\myfun{elim} \myappsp \mytmsyn \\
+ \end{array}
+ \end{array}
+ $
+ }
+
+ \mydesc{context elaboration:}{\myelab{\mydeclsyn}{\myctx}}{
+ \footnotesize
+
+ \AxiomC{$
+ \begin{array}{c}
+ \myinf{\mytele \myarr \mytyp}{\mytyp}\hspace{0.8cm}
+ \mytyc{D} \not\in \myctx \\
+ \myinff{\myctx;\ \mytyc{D} : \mytele \myarr \mytyp}{\mytele \mycc \mytele_i \myarr \myapp{\mytyc{D}}{\mytelee}}{\mytyp}\ \ \ (1 \leq i \leq n) \\
+ \text{For each $(\myb{x} {:} \mytya)$ in each $\mytele_i$, if $\mytyc{D} \in \mytya$, then $\mytya = \myapp{\mytyc{D}}{\vec{\mytmt}}$.}
+ \end{array}
+ $}
+ \UnaryInfC{$
+ \begin{array}{r@{\ }c@{\ }l}
+ \myctx & \myelabt & \myadt{\mytyc{D}}{\mytele}{}{ \cdots \ |\ \mydc{c}_n : \mytele_n } \\
+ & & \vspace{-0.2cm} \\
+ & \myelabf & \myctx;\ \mytyc{D} : \mytele \myarr \mytyp;\ \cdots;\ \mytyc{D}.\mydc{c}_n : \mytele \mycc \mytele_n \myarr \myapp{\mytyc{D}}{\mytelee}; \\
+ & &
+ \begin{array}{@{}r@{\ }l l}
+ \mytyc{D}.\myfun{elim} : & \mytele \myarr (\myb{x} {:} \myapp{\mytyc{D}}{\mytelee}) \myarr & \textbf{target} \\
+ & (\myb{P} {:} \myapp{\mytyc{D}}{\mytelee} \myarr \mytyp) \myarr & \textbf{motive} \\
+ & \left.
+ \begin{array}{@{}l}
+ \myind{3} \vdots \\
+ (\mytele_n \mycc \myhyps(\myb{P}, \mytele_n) \myarr \myapp{\myb{P}}{(\myapp{\mytyc{D}.\mydc{c}_n}{\mytelee_n})}) \myarr
+ \end{array} \right \}
+ & \textbf{methods} \\
+ & \myapp{\myb{P}}{\myb{x}} &
+ \end{array}
+ \end{array}
+ $}
+ \DisplayProof \\ \vspace{0.2cm}\ \\
+ $
+ \begin{array}{@{}l l@{\ } l@{} r c l}
+ \textbf{where} & \myhyps(\myb{P}, & \myemptytele &) & \mymetagoes & \myemptytele \\
+ & \myhyps(\myb{P}, & (\myb{r} {:} \myapp{\mytyc{D}}{\vec{\mytmt}}) \mycc \mytele &) & \mymetagoes & (\myb{r'} {:} \myapp{\myb{P}}{\myb{r}}) \mycc \myhyps(\myb{P}, \mytele) \\
+ & \myhyps(\myb{P}, & (\myb{x} {:} \mytya) \mycc \mytele & ) & \mymetagoes & \myhyps(\myb{P}, \mytele)
+ \end{array}
+ $
+
+ }
+
+ \mydesc{reduction elaboration:}{\mydeclsyn \myelabf \myctx \vdash \mytmsyn \myred \mytmsyn}{
+ \footnotesize
+ $\myadt{\mytyc{D}}{\mytele}{}{ \cdots \ |\ \mydc{c}_n : \mytele_n } \ \ \myelabf$
+ \AxiomC{$\mytyc{D} : \mytele \myarr \mytyp \in \myctx$}
+ \AxiomC{$\mytyc{D}.\mydc{c}_i : \mytele;\mytele_i \myarr \myapp{\mytyc{D}}{\mytelee} \in \myctx$}
+ \BinaryInfC{$
+ \myctx \vdash \myapp{\myapp{\myapp{\mytyc{D}.\myfun{elim}}{(\myapp{\mytyc{D}.\mydc{c}_i}{\vec{\myse{t}}})}}{\myse{P}}}{\vec{\myse{m}}} \myred \myapp{\myapp{\myse{m}_i}{\vec{\mytmt}}}{\myrecs(\myse{P}, \vec{m}, \mytele_i)}
+ $}
+ \DisplayProof \\ \vspace{0.2cm}\ \\
+ $
+ \begin{array}{@{}l l@{\ } l@{} r c l}
+ \textbf{where} & \myrecs(\myse{P}, \vec{m}, & \myemptytele &) & \mymetagoes & \myemptytele \\
+ & \myrecs(\myse{P}, \vec{m}, & (\myb{r} {:} \myapp{\mytyc{D}}{\vec{A}}); \mytele & ) & \mymetagoes & (\mytyc{D}.\myfun{elim} \myappsp \myb{r} \myappsp \myse{P} \myappsp \vec{m}); \myrecs(\myse{P}, \vec{m}, \mytele) \\
+ & \myrecs(\myse{P}, \vec{m}, & (\myb{x} {:} \mytya); \mytele &) & \mymetagoes & \myrecs(\myse{P}, \vec{m}, \mytele)
+ \end{array}
+ $
+ }
+ \end{subfigure}
+
+ \begin{subfigure}[b]{\textwidth}
+ \mydesc{syntax elaboration:}{\myelab{\mydeclsyn}{\mytmsyn ::= \cdots}}{
+ \footnotesize
+ $
+ \begin{array}{r@{\ }c@{\ }l}
+ \myctx & \myelabt & \myreco{\mytyc{D}}{\mytele}{}{ \cdots, \myfun{f}_n : \myse{F}_n } \\
+ & \myelabf &
+
+ \begin{array}{r@{\ }c@{\ }l}
+ \mytmsyn & ::= & \cdots \mysynsep \myapp{\mytyc{D}}{\mytmsyn^{\mytele}} \mysynsep \mytyc{D}.\mydc{constr} \myappsp \mytmsyn^{n} \mysynsep \cdots \mysynsep \mytyc{D}.\myfun{f}_n \myappsp \mytmsyn \\
+ \end{array}
+ \end{array}
+ $
+}
+
+
+\mydesc{context elaboration:}{\myelab{\mydeclsyn}{\myctx}}{
+ \footnotesize
+ \AxiomC{$
+ \begin{array}{c}
+ \myinf{\mytele \myarr \mytyp}{\mytyp}\hspace{0.8cm}
+ \mytyc{D} \not\in \myctx \\
+ \myinff{\myctx; \mytele; (\myb{f}_j : \myse{F}_j)_{j=1}^{i - 1}}{F_i}{\mytyp} \myind{3} (1 \le i \le n)
+ \end{array}
+ $}
+ \UnaryInfC{$
+ \begin{array}{r@{\ }c@{\ }l}
+ \myctx & \myelabt & \myreco{\mytyc{D}}{\mytele}{}{ \cdots, \myfun{f}_n : \myse{F}_n } \\
+ & & \vspace{-0.2cm} \\
+ & \myelabf & \myctx;\ \mytyc{D} : \mytele \myarr \mytyp;\ \cdots;\ \mytyc{D}.\myfun{f}_n : \mytele \myarr (\myb{x} {:} \myapp{\mytyc{D}}{\mytelee}) \myarr \mysub{\myse{F}_n}{\myb{f}_i}{\myapp{\myfun{f}_i}{\myb{x}}}_{i = 1}^{n-1}; \\
+ & & \mytyc{D}.\mydc{constr} : \mytele \myarr \myse{F}_1 \myarr \cdots \myarr \myse{F}_n \myarr \myapp{\mytyc{D}}{\mytelee};
+ \end{array}
+ $}
+ \DisplayProof
+}
+
+ \mydesc{reduction elaboration:}{\mydeclsyn \myelabf \myctx \vdash \mytmsyn \myred \mytmsyn}{
+ \footnotesize
+ $\myreco{\mytyc{D}}{\mytele}{}{ \cdots, \myfun{f}_n : \myse{F}_n } \ \ \myelabf$
+ \AxiomC{$\mytyc{D} \in \myctx$}
+ \UnaryInfC{$\myctx \vdash \myapp{\mytyc{D}.\myfun{f}_i}{(\mytyc{D}.\mydc{constr} \myappsp \vec{t})} \myred t_i$}
+ \DisplayProof
+ }
+
+ \end{subfigure}
+ \caption{Elaboration for data types and records.}
+ \label{fig:elab}
+\end{figure}
+
+Following the intuition given by the examples, the mechanised
+elaboration is presented in figure \ref{fig:elab}, which is essentially
+a modification of figure 9 of \citep{McBride2004}\footnote{However, our
+ datatypes do not have indices, we do bidirectional typechecking by
+ treating constructors/destructors as syntactic constructs, and we have
+ records.}.
+
+In data types declarations we allow recursive occurrences as long as
+they are \emph{strictly positive}, employing a syntactic check to make
+sure that this is the case. See \cite{Dybjer1991} for a more formal
+treatment of inductive definitions in ITT.
+
+For what concerns records, recursive occurrences are disallowed. The
+reason for this choice is answered by the reason for the choice of
+having records at all: we need records to give the user types with
+$\eta$-laws for equality, as we saw in section % TODO add section
+and in the treatment of OTT in section \ref{sec:ott}. If we tried to
+$\eta$-expand recursive data types, we would expand forever.
+
+To implement bidirectional type checking for constructors and
+destructors, we store their types in full in the context, and then
+instantiate when due:
+
+\mydesc{typing:}{ }{
+ \AxiomC{$
+ \begin{array}{c}
+ \mytyc{D} : \mytele \myarr \mytyp \in \myctx \hspace{1cm}
+ \mytyc{D}.\mydc{c} : \mytele \mycc \mytele' \myarr
+ \myapp{\mytyc{D}}{\mytelee} \in \myctx \\
+ \mytele'' = (\mytele;\mytele')\vec{A} \hspace{1cm}
+ \mychkk{\myctx; \mytake_{i-1}(\mytele'')}{t_i}{\myix_i( \mytele'')}\ \
+ (1 \le i \le \mytele'')
+ \end{array}
+ $}
+ \UnaryInfC{$\mychk{\myapp{\mytyc{D}.\mydc{c}}{\vec{t}}}{\myapp{\mytyc{D}}{\vec{A}}}$}
+ \DisplayProof
+
+ \myderivsp
+
+ \AxiomC{$\mytyc{D} : \mytele \myarr \mytyp \in \myctx$}
+ \AxiomC{$\mytyc{D}.\myfun{f} : \mytele \mycc (\myb{x} {:}
+ \myapp{\mytyc{D}}{\mytelee}) \myarr \myse{F}$}
+ \AxiomC{$\myjud{\mytmt}{\myapp{\mytyc{D}}{\vec{A}}}$}
+ \TrinaryInfC{$\myinf{\myapp{\mytyc{D}.\myfun{f}}{\mytmt}}{(\mytele
+ \mycc (\myb{x} {:} \myapp{\mytyc{D}}{\mytelee}) \myarr
+ \myse{F})(\vec{A};\mytmt)}$}
+ \DisplayProof
+ }
+
+\subsubsection{Why user defined types? Why eliminators?}
+
+% TODO reference levitated theories, indexed containers
+
+foobar
+
+\subsection{Cumulative hierarchy and typical ambiguity}
+\label{sec:term-hierarchy}
+
+A type hierarchy as presented in section \label{sec:itt} is a
+considerable burden on the user, on various levels. Consider for
+example how we recovered disjunctions in section \ref{sec:disju}: we
+have a function that takes two $\mytyp_0$ and forms a new $\mytyp_0$.
+What if we wanted to form a disjunction containing two $\mytyp_0$, or
+$\mytyp_{42}$? Our definition would fail us, since $\mytyp_0 :
+\mytyp_1$.
+
+One way to solve this issue is a \emph{cumulative} hierarchy, where
+$\mytyp_{l_1} : \mytyp_{l_2}$ iff $l_1 < l_2$. This way we retain
+consistency, while allowing for `large' definitions that work on small
+types too. For example we might define our disjunction to be
+{\small\[
+ \myarg\myfun{$\vee$}\myarg : \mytyp_{100} \myarr \mytyp_{100} \myarr \mytyp_{100}
+\]}
+And hope that $\mytyp_{100}$ will be large enough to fit all the types
+that we want to use with our disjunction. However, there are two
+problems with this. First, there is the obvious clumsyness of having to
+manually specify the size of types. More importantly, if we want to use
+$\myfun{$\vee$}$ itself as an argument to other type-formers, we need to
+make sure that those allow for types at least as large as
+$\mytyp_{100}$.
+
+A better option is to employ a mechanised version of what Russell called
+\emph{typical ambiguity}: we let the user live under the illusion that
+$\mytyp : \mytyp$, but check that the statements about types are
+consistent behind the hood. $\mykant$\ implements this following the
+lines of \cite{Huet1988}. See also \citep{Harper1991} for a published
+reference, although describing a more complex system allowing for both
+explicit and explicit hierarchy at the same time.
+
+We define a partial ordering on the levels, with both weak ($\le$) and
+strong ($<$) constraints---the laws governing them being the same as the
+ones governing $<$ and $\le$ for the natural numbers. Each occurrence
+of $\mytyp$ is decorated with a unique reference, and we keep a set of
+constraints and add new constraints as we type check, generating new
+references when needed.
+
+For example, when type checking the type $\mytyp\, r_1$, where $r_1$
+denotes the unique reference assigned to that term, we will generate a
+new fresh reference $\mytyp\, r_2$, and add the constraint $r_1 < r_2$
+to the set. When type checking $\myctx \vdash
+\myfora{\myb{x}}{\mytya}{\mytyb}$, if $\myctx \vdash \mytya : \mytyp\,
+r_1$ and $\myctx; \myb{x} : \mytyb \vdash \mytyb : \mytyp\,r_2$; we will
+generate new reference $r$ and add $r_1 \le r$ and $r_2 \le r$ to the
+set.
+
+If at any point the constraint set becomes inconsistent, type checking
+fails. Moreover, when comparing two $\mytyp$ terms we equate their
+respective references with two $\le$ constraints---the details are
+explained in section \ref{sec:hier-impl}.
+
+Another more flexible but also more verbose alternative is the one
+chosen by Agda, where levels can be quantified so that the relationship
+between arguments and result in type formers can be explicitly
+expressed:
+{\small\[
+\myarg\myfun{$\vee$}\myarg : (l_1\, l_2 : \mytyc{Level}) \myarr \mytyp_{l_1} \myarr \mytyp_{l_2} \myarr \mytyp_{l_1 \mylub l_2}
+\]}
+Inference algorithms to automatically derive this kind of relationship
+are currently subject of research. We chose less flexible but more
+concise way, since it is easier to implement and better understood.
+
+\subsection{Observational equality, \mykant\ style}
+
+There are two correlated differences between $\mykant$\ and the theory
+used to present OTT. The first is that in $\mykant$ we have a type
+hierarchy, which lets us, for example, abstract over types. The second
+is that we let the user define inductive types.
+
+Reconciling propositions for OTT and a hierarchy had already been
+investigated by Conor McBride\footnote{See
+ \url{http://www.e-pig.org/epilogue/index.html?p=1098.html}.}, and we
+follow his footsteps. Most of the work, as an extension of elaboration,
+is to generate reduction rules and coercions.
+
+\subsubsection{The \mykant\ prelude, and $\myprop$ositions}
+
+Before defining $\myprop$, we define some basic types inside $\mykant$,
+as the target for the $\myprop$ decoder:
+\begin{framed}
+\small
+$
+\begin{array}{l}
+ \myadt{\mytyc{Empty}}{}{ }{ } \\
+ \myfun{absurd} : (\myb{A} {:} \mytyp) \myarr \mytyc{Empty} \myarr \myb{A} \mapsto \\
+ \myind{2} \myabs{\myb{A\ \myb{bot}}}{\mytyc{Empty}.\myfun{elim} \myappsp \myb{bot} \myappsp (\myabs{\_}{\myb{A}})} \\
+ \ \\
+
+ \myreco{\mytyc{Unit}}{}{}{ } \\ \ \\
+
+ \myreco{\mytyc{Prod}}{\myappsp (\myb{A}\ \myb{B} {:} \mytyp)}{ }{\myfun{fst} : \myb{A}, \myfun{snd} : \myb{B} }
+\end{array}
+$
+\end{framed}
+When using $\mytyc{Prod}$, we shall use $\myprod$ to define `nested'
+products, and $\myproj{n}$ to project elements from them, so that
+{\small
+\[
+\begin{array}{@{}l}
+\mytya \myprod \mytyb = \mytyc{Prod} \myappsp \mytya \myappsp (\mytyc{Prod} \myappsp \mytyb \myappsp \myunit) \\
+\mytya \myprod \mytyb \myprod \myse{C} = \mytyc{Prod} \myappsp \mytya \myappsp (\mytyc{Prod} \myappsp \mytyb \myappsp (\mytyc{Prod} \myappsp \mytyc \myappsp \myunit)) \\
+\myind{2} \vdots \\
+\myproj{1} : \mytyc{Prod} \myappsp \mytya \myappsp \mytyb \myarr \mytya \\
+\myproj{2} : \mytyc{Prod} \myappsp \mytya \myappsp (\mytyc{Prod} \myappsp \mytyb \myappsp \myse{C}) \myarr \mytyb \\
+\myind{2} \vdots
+\end{array}
+\]
+}
+And so on, so that $\myproj{n}$ will work with all products with at
+least than $n$ elements. Then we can define propositions, and decoding:
+
+\mydesc{syntax}{ }{
+ $
+ \begin{array}{r@{\ }c@{\ }l}
+ \mytmsyn & ::= & \cdots \mysynsep \myprdec{\myprsyn} \\
+ \myprsyn & ::= & \mybot \mysynsep \mytop \mysynsep \myprsyn \myand \myprsyn \mysynsep \myprfora{\myb{x}}{\mytmsyn}{\myprsyn}
+ \end{array}
+ $
+}
+
+\mydesc{proposition decoding:}{\myprdec{\mytmsyn} \myred \mytmsyn}{
+ \begin{tabular}{cc}
+ $
+ \begin{array}{l@{\ }c@{\ }l}
+ \myprdec{\mybot} & \myred & \myempty \\
+ \myprdec{\mytop} & \myred & \myunit
+ \end{array}
+ $
+ &
+ $
+ \begin{array}{r@{ }c@{ }l@{\ }c@{\ }l}
+ \myprdec{&\myse{P} \myand \myse{Q} &} & \myred & \myprdec{\myse{P}} \myprod \myprdec{\myse{Q}} \\
+ \myprdec{&\myprfora{\myb{x}}{\mytya}{\myse{P}} &} & \myred &
+ \myfora{\myb{x}}{\mytya}{\myprdec{\myse{P}}}
+ \end{array}
+ $
+ \end{tabular}
+}
+
+\subsubsection{Why $\myprop$?}
+
+It is worth to ask if $\myprop$ is needed at all. It is perfectly
+possible to have the type checker identify propositional types
+automatically, and in fact that is what The author initially planned to
+identify the propositional fragment internally \cite{Jacobs1994}.
+
+% TODO finish
+
+\subsubsection{OTT constructs}
+
+Before presenting the direction that $\mykant$\ takes, let's consider
+some examples of use-defined data types, and the result we would expect,
+given what we already know about OTT, assuming the same propositional
+equalities.
+
+\begin{description}
+
+\item[Product types] Let's consider first the already mentioned
+ dependent product, using the alternate name $\mysigma$\footnote{For
+ extra confusion, `dependent products' are often called `dependent
+ sums' in the literature, referring to the interpretation that
+ identifies the first element as a `tag' deciding the type of the
+ second element, which lets us recover sum types (disjuctions), as we
+ saw in section \ref{sec:user-type}. Thus, $\mysigma$.} to
+ avoid confusion with the $\mytyc{Prod}$ in the prelude: {\small\[
+ \begin{array}{@{}l}
+ \myreco{\mysigma}{\myappsp (\myb{A} {:} \mytyp) \myappsp (\myb{B} {:} \myb{A} \myarr \mytyp)}{\\ \myind{2}}{\myfst : \myb{A}, \mysnd : \myapp{\myb{B}}{\myb{fst}}}
+ \end{array}
+ \]} Let's start with type-level equality. The result we want is
+ {\small\[
+ \begin{array}{@{}l}
+ \mysigma \myappsp \mytya_1 \myappsp \mytyb_1 \myeq \mysigma \myappsp \mytya_2 \myappsp \mytyb_2 \myred \\
+ \myind{2} \mytya_1 \myeq \mytya_2 \myand \myprfora{\myb{x_1}}{\mytya_1}{\myprfora{\myb{x_2}}{\mytya_2}{\myjm{\myb{x_1}}{\mytya_1}{\myb{x_2}}{\mytya_2}} \myimpl \myapp{\mytyb_1}{\myb{x_1}} \myeq \myapp{\mytyb_2}{\myb{x_2}}}
+ \end{array}
+ \]} The difference here is that in the original presentation of OTT
+ the type binders are explicit, while here $\mytyb_1$ and $\mytyb_2$
+ functions returning types. We can do this thanks to the type
+ hierarchy, and this hints at the fact that heterogeneous equality will
+ have to allow $\mytyp$ `to the right of the colon', and in fact this
+ provides the solution to simplify the equality above.
+
+ If we take, just like we saw previously in OTT
+ {\small\[
+ \begin{array}{@{}l}
+ \myjm{\myse{f}_1}{\myfora{\mytya_1}{\myb{x_1}}{\mytyb_1}}{\myse{f}_2}{\myfora{\mytya_2}{\myb{x_2}}{\mytyb_2}} \myred \\
+ \myind{2} \myprfora{\myb{x_1}}{\mytya_1}{\myprfora{\myb{x_2}}{\mytya_2}{
+ \myjm{\myb{x_1}}{\mytya_1}{\myb{x_2}}{\mytya_2} \myimpl
+ \myjm{\myapp{\myse{f}_1}{\myb{x_1}}}{\mytyb_1[\myb{x_1}]}{\myapp{\myse{f}_2}{\myb{x_2}}}{\mytyb_2[\myb{x_2}]}
+ }}
+ \end{array}
+ \]} Then we can simply take
+ {\small\[
+ \begin{array}{@{}l}
+ \mysigma \myappsp \mytya_1 \myappsp \mytyb_1 \myeq \mysigma \myappsp \mytya_2 \myappsp \mytyb_2 \myred \\ \myind{2} \mytya_1 \myeq \mytya_2 \myand \myjm{\mytyb_1}{\mytya_1 \myarr \mytyp}{\mytyb_2}{\mytya_2 \myarr \mytyp}
+ \end{array}
+ \]} Which will reduce to precisely what we desire. For what
+ concerns coercions and quotation, things stay the same (apart from the
+ fact that we apply to the second argument instead of substituting).
+ We can recognise records such as $\mysigma$ as such and employ
+ projections in value equality, coercions, and quotation; as to not
+ impede progress if not necessary.
+
+\item[Lists] Now for finite lists, which will give us a taste for data
+ constructors:
+ {\small\[
+ \begin{array}{@{}l}
+ \myadt{\mylist}{\myappsp (\myb{A} {:} \mytyp)}{ }{\mydc{nil} \mydcsep \mydc{cons} \myappsp \myb{A} \myappsp (\myapp{\mylist}{\myb{A}})}
+ \end{array}
+ \]}
+ Type equality is simple---we only need to compare the parameter:
+ {\small\[
+ \mylist \myappsp \mytya_1 \myeq \mylist \myappsp \mytya_2 \myred \mytya_1 \myeq \mytya_2
+ \]} For coercions, we transport based on the constructor, recycling
+ the proof for the inductive occurrence: {\small\[
+ \begin{array}{@{}l@{\ }c@{\ }l}
+ \mycoe \myappsp (\mylist \myappsp \mytya_1) \myappsp (\mylist \myappsp \mytya_2) \myappsp \myse{Q} \myappsp \mydc{nil} & \myred & \mydc{nil} \\
+ \mycoe \myappsp (\mylist \myappsp \mytya_1) \myappsp (\mylist \myappsp \mytya_2) \myappsp \myse{Q} \myappsp (\mydc{cons} \myappsp \mytmm \myappsp \mytmn) & \myred & \\
+ \multicolumn{3}{l}{\myind{2} \mydc{cons} \myappsp (\mycoe \myappsp \mytya_1 \myappsp \mytya_2 \myappsp \myse{Q} \myappsp \mytmm) \myappsp (\mycoe \myappsp (\mylist \myappsp \mytya_1) \myappsp (\mylist \myappsp \mytya_2) \myappsp \myse{Q} \myappsp \mytmn)}
+ \end{array}
+ \]} Value equality is unsurprising---we match the constructors, and
+ return bottom for mismatches. However, we also need to equate the
+ parameter in $\mydc{nil}$: {\small\[
+ \begin{array}{r@{ }c@{\ }c@{\ }c@{}l@{\ }c@{\ }r@{}c@{\ }c@{\ }c@{}l@{\ }l}
+ (& \mydc{nil} & : & \myapp{\mylist}{\mytya_1} &) & \myeq & (& \mydc{nil} & : & \myapp{\mylist}{\mytya_2} &) \myred \mytya_1 \myeq \mytya_2 \\
+ (& \mydc{cons} \myappsp \mytmm_1 \myappsp \mytmn_1 & : & \myapp{\mylist}{\mytya_1} &) & \myeq & (& \mydc{cons} \myappsp \mytmm_2 \myappsp \mytmn_2 & : & \myapp{\mylist}{\mytya_2} &) \myred \\
+ & \multicolumn{11}{@{}l}{ \myind{2}
+ \myjm{\mytmm_1}{\mytya_1}{\mytmm_2}{\mytya_2} \myand \myjm{\mytmn_1}{\myapp{\mylist}{\mytya_1}}{\mytmn_2}{\myapp{\mylist}{\mytya_2}}
+ } \\
+ (& \mydc{nil} & : & \myapp{\mylist}{\mytya_1} &) & \myeq & (& \mydc{cons} \myappsp \mytmm_2 \myappsp \mytmn_2 & : & \myapp{\mylist}{\mytya_2} &) \myred \mybot \\
+ (& \mydc{cons} \myappsp \mytmm_1 \myappsp \mytmn_1 & : & \myapp{\mylist}{\mytya_1} &) & \myeq & (& \mydc{nil} & : & \myapp{\mylist}{\mytya_2} &) \myred \mybot
+ \end{array}
+ \]}
+ Finally, quotation
+ % TODO quotation
+
+
+
+
+\end{description}
+
+
+\mydesc{syntax}{ }{
+ $
+ \begin{array}{r@{\ }c@{\ }l}
+ \mytmsyn & ::= & \cdots \mysynsep \mycoee{\mytmsyn}{\mytmsyn}{\mytmsyn}{\mytmsyn} \mysynsep
+ \mycohh{\mytmsyn}{\mytmsyn}{\mytmsyn}{\mytmsyn} \\
+ \myprsyn & ::= & \cdots \mysynsep \myjm{\mytmsyn}{\mytmsyn}{\mytmsyn}{\mytmsyn} \\
+ \end{array}
+ $
+}
+
+\begin{figure}[p]
+\mydesc{typing:}{\myctx \vdash \myprsyn \myred \myprsyn}{
+ \footnotesize
+ \begin{tabular}{cc}
+ \AxiomC{$\myjud{\myse{P}}{\myprdec{\mytya \myeq \mytyb}}$}
+ \AxiomC{$\myjud{\mytmt}{\mytya}$}
+ \BinaryInfC{$\myjud{\mycoee{\mytya}{\mytyb}{\myse{P}}{\mytmt}}{\mytyb}$}
+ \DisplayProof
+ &
+ \AxiomC{$\myjud{\myse{P}}{\myprdec{\mytya \myeq \mytyb}}$}
+ \AxiomC{$\myjud{\mytmt}{\mytya}$}
+ \BinaryInfC{$\myjud{\mycohh{\mytya}{\mytyb}{\myse{P}}{\mytmt}}{\myprdec{\myjm{\mytmt}{\mytya}{\mycoee{\mytya}{\mytyb}{\myse{P}}{\mytmt}}{\mytyb}}}$}
+ \DisplayProof
+ \end{tabular}
+}
+\mydesc{propositions:}{\myjud{\myprsyn}{\myprop}}{
+ \footnotesize
+ \begin{tabular}{cc}
+ \AxiomC{\phantom{$\myjud{\myse{P}}{\myprop}$}}
+ \UnaryInfC{$\myjud{\mytop}{\myprop}$}
+ \noLine
+ \UnaryInfC{$\myjud{\mybot}{\myprop}$}
+ \DisplayProof
+ &
+ \AxiomC{$\myjud{\myse{P}}{\myprop}$}
+ \AxiomC{$\myjud{\myse{Q}}{\myprop}$}
+ \BinaryInfC{$\myjud{\myse{P} \myand \myse{Q}}{\myprop}$}
+ \noLine
+ \UnaryInfC{\phantom{$\myjud{\mybot}{\myprop}$}}
+ \DisplayProof
+ \end{tabular}
+
+ \myderivsp
+
+ \begin{tabular}{cc}
+ \AxiomC{$
+ \begin{array}{@{}c}
+ \phantom{\myjud{\myse{A}}{\mytyp} \hspace{0.8cm} \myjud{\mytmm}{\myse{A}}} \\
+ \myjud{\myse{A}}{\mytyp}\hspace{0.8cm}
+ \myjudd{\myctx; \myb{x} : \mytya}{\myse{P}}{\myprop}
+ \end{array}
+ $}
+ \UnaryInfC{$\myjud{\myprfora{\myb{x}}{\mytya}{\myse{P}}}{\myprop}$}
+ \DisplayProof
+ &
+ \AxiomC{$
+ \begin{array}{c}
+ \myjud{\myse{A}}{\mytyp} \hspace{0.8cm} \myjud{\mytmm}{\myse{A}} \\
+ \myjud{\myse{B}}{\mytyp} \hspace{0.8cm} \myjud{\mytmn}{\myse{B}}
+ \end{array}
+ $}
+ \UnaryInfC{$\myjud{\myjm{\mytmm}{\myse{A}}{\mytmn}{\myse{B}}}{\myprop}$}
+ \DisplayProof
+ \end{tabular}
+}
+ % TODO equality for decodings
+\mydesc{equality reduction:}{\myctx \vdash \myprsyn \myred \myprsyn}{
+ \footnotesize
+ \AxiomC{}
+ \UnaryInfC{$\myctx \vdash \myjm{\mytyp}{\mytyp}{\mytyp}{\mytyp} \myred \mytop$}
+ \DisplayProof
+
+ \myderivsp
+
+ \AxiomC{}
+ \UnaryInfC{$
+ \begin{array}{@{}r@{\ }l}
+ \myctx \vdash &
+ \myjm{\myfora{\myb{x_1}}{\mytya_1}{\mytyb_1}}{\mytyp}{\myfora{\myb{x_2}}{\mytya_2}{\mytyb_2}}{\mytyp} \myred \\
+ & \myind{2} \mytya_2 \myeq \mytya_1 \myand \myprfora{\myb{x_2}}{\mytya_2}{\myprfora{\myb{x_1}}{\mytya_1}{
+ \myjm{\myb{x_2}}{\mytya_2}{\myb{x_1}}{\mytya_1} \myimpl \mytyb_1 \myeq \mytyb_2
+ }}
+ \end{array}
+ $}
+ \DisplayProof
+
+ \myderivsp
+
+ \AxiomC{}
+ \UnaryInfC{$
+ \begin{array}{@{}r@{\ }l}
+ \myctx \vdash &
+ \myjm{\myse{f}_1}{\myfora{\myb{x_1}}{\mytya_1}{\mytyb_1}}{\myse{f}_2}{\myfora{\myb{x_2}}{\mytya_2}{\mytyb_2}} \myred \\
+ & \myind{2} \myprfora{\myb{x_1}}{\mytya_1}{\myprfora{\myb{x_2}}{\mytya_2}{
+ \myjm{\myb{x_1}}{\mytya_1}{\myb{x_2}}{\mytya_2} \myimpl
+ \myjm{\myapp{\myse{f}_1}{\myb{x_1}}}{\mytyb_1[\myb{x_1}]}{\myapp{\myse{f}_2}{\myb{x_2}}}{\mytyb_2[\myb{x_2}]}
+ }}
+ \end{array}
+ $}
+ \DisplayProof
+
+
+ \myderivsp
+
+ \AxiomC{$\mytyc{D} : \mytele \myarr \mytyp \in \myctx$}
+ \UnaryInfC{$
+ \begin{array}{r@{\ }l}
+ \myctx \vdash &
+ \myjm{\mytyc{D} \myappsp \vec{A}}{\mytyp}{\mytyc{D} \myappsp \vec{B}}{\mytyp} \myred \\
+ & \myind{2} \mybigand_{i = 1}^n (\myjm{\mytya_n}{\myhead(\mytele(A_1 \cdots A_{i-1}))}{\mytyb_i}{\myhead(\mytele(B_1 \cdots B_{i-1}))})
+ \end{array}
+ $}
+ \DisplayProof
+
+ \myderivsp
+
+ \AxiomC{$
+ \begin{array}{@{}c}
+ \mydataty(\mytyc{D}, \myctx)\hspace{0.8cm}
+ \mytyc{D}.\mydc{c} : \mytele;\mytele' \myarr \mytyc{D} \myappsp \mytelee \in \myctx \\
+ \mytele_A = (\mytele;\mytele')\vec{A}\hspace{0.8cm}
+ \mytele_B = (\mytele;\mytele')\vec{B}
+ \end{array}
+ $}
+ \UnaryInfC{$
+ \begin{array}{@{}l@{\ }l}
+ \myctx \vdash & \myjm{\mytyc{D}.\mydc{c} \myappsp \vec{\myse{l}}}{\mytyc{D} \myappsp \vec{A}}{\mytyc{D}.\mydc{c} \myappsp \vec{\myse{r}}}{\mytyc{D} \myappsp \vec{B}} \myred \\
+ & \myind{2} \mybigand_{i=1}^n(\myjm{\mytmm_i}{\myhead(\mytele_A (\mytya_i \cdots \mytya_{i-1}))}{\mytmn_i}{\myhead(\mytele_B (\mytyb_i \cdots \mytyb_{i-1}))})
+ \end{array}
+ $}
+ \DisplayProof
+
+ \myderivsp
+
+ \AxiomC{$\mydataty(\mytyc{D}, \myctx)$}
+ \UnaryInfC{$
+ \myctx \vdash \myjm{\mytyc{D}.\mydc{c} \myappsp \vec{\myse{l}}}{\mytyc{D} \myappsp \vec{A}}{\mytyc{D}.\mydc{c'} \myappsp \vec{\myse{r}}}{\mytyc{D} \myappsp \vec{B}} \myred \mybot
+ $}
+ \DisplayProof
+
+ \myderivsp
+
+ \AxiomC{$
+ \begin{array}{@{}c}
+ \myisreco(\mytyc{D}, \myctx)\hspace{0.8cm}
+ \mytyc{D}.\myfun{f}_i : \mytele; (\myb{x} {:} \myapp{\mytyc{D}}{\mytelee}) \myarr \myse{F}_i \in \myctx\\
+ \end{array}
+ $}
+ \UnaryInfC{$
+ \begin{array}{@{}l@{\ }l}
+ \myctx \vdash & \myjm{\myse{l}}{\mytyc{D} \myappsp \vec{A}}{\myse{r}}{\mytyc{D} \myappsp \vec{B}} \myred \\ & \myind{2} \mybigand_{i=1}^n(\myjm{\mytyc{D}.\myfun{f}_1 \myappsp \myse{l}}{(\mytele; (\myb{x} {:} \myapp{\mytyc{D}}{\mytelee}) \myarr \myse{F}_i)(\vec{\mytya};\myse{l})}{\mytyc{D}.\myfun{f}_i \myappsp \myse{r}}{(\mytele; (\myb{x} {:} \myapp{\mytyc{D}}{\mytelee}) \myarr \myse{F}_i)(\vec{\mytyb};\myse{r})})
+ \end{array}
+ $}
+ \DisplayProof
+
+ \myderivsp
+ \AxiomC{}
+ \UnaryInfC{$\myjm{\mytmm}{\mytya}{\mytmn}{\mytyb} \myred \mybot\ \text{if $\mytya$ and $\mytyb$ are canonical types.}$}
+ \DisplayProof
+}
+ \caption{Equality reduction for $\mykant$.}
+ \label{fig:kant-eq-red}
+\end{figure}
+
+\subsubsection{$\myprop$ and the hierarchy}
+
+Where is $\myprop$ placed in the $\mytyp$ hierarchy? At each universe
+level, we will have that
+
+\subsubsection{Quotation and irrelevance}
+\ref{sec:kant-irr}
+
+foo
+
+\section{\mykant : The practice}
+\label{sec:kant-practice}
+
+The codebase consists of around 2500 lines of Haskell, as reported by
+the \texttt{cloc} utility. The high level design is inspired by Conor
+McBride's work on various incarnations of Epigram, and specifically by
+the first version as described \citep{McBride2004} and the codebase for
+the new version \footnote{Available intermittently as a \texttt{darcs}
+ repository at \url{http://sneezy.cs.nott.ac.uk/darcs/Pig09}.}. In
+many ways \mykant\ is something in between the first and second version
+of Epigram.
+
+The interaction happens in a read-eval-print loop (REPL). The REPL is a
+available both as a commandline application and in a web interface,
+which is available at \url{kant.mazzo.li} and presents itself as in
+figure \ref{fig:kant-web}.
+
+\begin{figure}
+ \centering{
+ \includegraphics[scale=1.0]{kant-web.png}
+ }
+ \caption{The \mykant\ web prompt.}
+ \label{fig:kant-web}
+\end{figure}
+
+The interaction with the user takes place in a loop living in and updating a
+context \mykant\ declarations. The user inputs a new declaration that goes
+through various stages starts with the user inputing a \mykant\ declaration or
+another REPL command, which then goes through various stages that can end up
+in a context update, or in failures of various kind. The process is described
+diagrammatically in figure \ref{fig:kant-process}:
+
+\begin{description}
+\item[Parse] In this phase the text input gets converted to a sugared
+ version of the core language.
+
+\item[Desugar] The sugared declaration is converted to a core term.
+
+\item[Reference] Occurrences of $\mytyp$ get decorated by a unique reference,
+ which is necessary to implement the type hierarchy check.
+
+\item[Elaborate] Convert the declaration to some context item, which might be
+ a value declaration (type and body) or a data type declaration (constructors
+ and destructors). This phase works in tandem with \textbf{Typechecking},
+ which in turns needs to \textbf{Evaluate} terms.
+
+\item[Distill] and report the result. `Distilling' refers to the process of
+ converting a core term back to a sugared version that the user can
+ visualise. This can be necessary both to display errors including terms or
+ to display result of evaluations or type checking that the user has
+ requested.
+
+\item[Pretty print] Format the terms in a nice way, and display the result to
+ the user.
+
+\end{description}
+
+\begin{figure}
+ \centering{\small
+ \tikzstyle{block} = [rectangle, draw, text width=5em, text centered, rounded
+ corners, minimum height=2.5em, node distance=0.7cm]
+
+ \tikzstyle{decision} = [diamond, draw, text width=4.5em, text badly
+ centered, inner sep=0pt, node distance=0.7cm]
+
+ \tikzstyle{line} = [draw, -latex']
+
+ \tikzstyle{cloud} = [draw, ellipse, minimum height=2em, text width=5em, text
+ centered, node distance=1.5cm]
+
+
+ \begin{tikzpicture}[auto]
+ \node [cloud] (user) {User};
+ \node [block, below left=1cm and 0.1cm of user] (parse) {Parse};
+ \node [block, below=of parse] (desugar) {Desugar};
+ \node [block, below=of desugar] (reference) {Reference};
+ \node [block, below=of reference] (elaborate) {Elaborate};
+ \node [block, left=of elaborate] (tycheck) {Typecheck};
+ \node [block, left=of tycheck] (evaluate) {Evaluate};
+ \node [decision, right=of elaborate] (error) {Error?};
+ \node [block, right=of parse] (distill) {Distill};
+ \node [block, right=of desugar] (update) {Update context};
+
+ \path [line] (user) -- (parse);
+ \path [line] (parse) -- (desugar);
+ \path [line] (desugar) -- (reference);
+ \path [line] (reference) -- (elaborate);
+ \path [line] (elaborate) edge[bend right] (tycheck);
+ \path [line] (tycheck) edge[bend right] (elaborate);
+ \path [line] (elaborate) -- (error);
+ \path [line] (error) edge[out=0,in=0] node [near start] {yes} (distill);
+ \path [line] (error) -- node [near start] {no} (update);
+ \path [line] (update) -- (distill);
+ \path [line] (distill) -- (user);
+ \path [line] (tycheck) edge[bend right] (evaluate);
+ \path [line] (evaluate) edge[bend right] (tycheck);
+ \end{tikzpicture}
+ }
+ \caption{High level overview of the life of a \mykant\ prompt cycle.}
+ \label{fig:kant-process}
+\end{figure}
+
+\subsection{Parsing and \texttt{Sugar}}
+
+\subsection{Term representation and context}
+\label{sec:term-repr}
+
+\subsection{Type checking}
+
+\subsection{Type hierarchy}
+\label{sec:hier-impl}
+
+\subsection{Elaboration}
+
+\section{Evaluation}
+
+\section{Future work}
+
+% TODO coinduction (obscoin, gimenez), pattern unification (miller,
+% gundry), partiality monad (NAD)
\appendix
\section{Notation and syntax}
-In the languages presented I will also use different fonts and colors for
-different things:
+Syntax, derivation rules, and reduction rules, are enclosed in frames describing
+the type of relation being established and the syntactic elements appearing,
+for example
+
+\mydesc{typing:}{\myjud{\mytmsyn}{\mytysyn}}{
+ Typing derivations here.
+}
+
+In the languages presented and Agda code samples I also highlight the syntax,
+following a uniform color and font convention:
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c | l}
- $\mytyc{Sans}$ & Type constructors. \\
- $\myind{sans}$ & Data constructors. \\
+ $\mytyc{Sans}$ & Type constructors. \\
+ $\mydc{sans}$ & Data constructors. \\
% $\myfld{sans}$ & Field accessors (e.g. \myfld{fst} and \myfld{snd} for products). \\
- $\mysyn{roman}$ & Syntax of the language. \\
- $\myfun{roman}$ & Defined values. \\
- $\myb{math}$ & Bound variables.
+ $\mysyn{roman}$ & Keywords of the language. \\
+ $\myfun{roman}$ & Defined values and destructors. \\
+ $\myb{math}$ & Bound variables.
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
-\section{Agda rendition of a core ITT}
-\label{app:agda-code}
+Moreover, I will from time to time give examples in the Haskell programming
+language as defined in \citep{Haskell2010}, which I will typeset in
+\texttt{teletype} font. I assume that the reader is already familiar with
+Haskell, plenty of good introductions are available \citep{LYAH,ProgInHask}.
+
+When presenting grammars, I will use a word in $\mysynel{math}$ font
+(e.g. $\mytmsyn$ or $\mytysyn$) to indicate indicate nonterminals. Additionally,
+I will use quite flexibly a $\mysynel{math}$ font to indicate a syntactic
+element. More specifically, terms are usually indicated by lowercase letters
+(often $\mytmt$, $\mytmm$, or $\mytmn$); and types by an uppercase letter (often
+$\mytya$, $\mytyb$, or $\mytycc$).
+
+When presenting type derivations, I will often abbreviate and present multiple
+conclusions, each on a separate line:
+\begin{prooftree}
+ \AxiomC{$\myjud{\mytmt}{\mytya \myprod \mytyb}$}
+ \UnaryInfC{$\myjud{\myapp{\myfst}{\mytmt}}{\mytya}$}
+ \noLine
+ \UnaryInfC{$\myjud{\myapp{\mysnd}{\mytmt}}{\mytyb}$}
+\end{prooftree}
+
+I will often present `definition' in the described calculi and in
+$\mykant$\ itself, like so:
+{\small\[
+\begin{array}{@{}l}
+ \myfun{name} : \mytysyn \\
+ \myfun{name} \myappsp \myb{arg_1} \myappsp \myb{arg_2} \myappsp \cdots \mapsto \mytmsyn
+\end{array}
+\]}
+To define operators, I use a mixfix notation similar
+to Agda, where $\myarg$s denote arguments, for example
+{\small\[
+\begin{array}{@{}l}
+ \myarg \mathrel{\myfun{$\wedge$}} \myarg : \mybool \myarr \mybool \myarr \mybool \\
+ \myb{b_1} \mathrel{\myfun{$\wedge$}} \myb{b_2} \mapsto \cdots
+\end{array}
+\]}
+
+\section{Code}
+
+\subsection{ITT renditions}
+\label{app:itt-code}
+
+\subsubsection{Agda}
+\label{app:agda-itt}
+
+Note that in what follows rules for `base' types are
+universe-polymorphic, to reflect the exposition. Derived definitions,
+on the other hand, mostly work with \mytyc{Set}, reflecting the fact
+that in the theory presented we don't have universe polymorphism.
\begin{code}
module ITT where
+ open import Level
+
data Empty : Set where
absurd : ∀ {a} {A : Set a} → Empty → A
absurd ()
+ ¬_ : ∀ {a} → (A : Set a) → Set a
+ ¬ A = A → Empty
+
record Unit : Set where
constructor tt
record _×_ {a b} (A : Set a) (B : A → Set b) : Set (a ⊔ b) where
constructor _,_
field
- fst : A
- snd : B fst
+ fst : A
+ snd : B fst
+ open _×_ public
data Bool : Set where
true false : Bool
- if_/_then_else_ : ∀ {a}
- (x : Bool) → (P : Bool → Set a) → P true → P false → P x
+ if_/_then_else_ : ∀ {a} (x : Bool) (P : Bool → Set a) → P true → P false → P x
if true / _ then x else _ = x
if false / _ then _ else x = x
+ if_then_else_ : ∀ {a} (x : Bool) {P : Bool → Set a} → P true → P false → P x
+ if_then_else_ x {P} = if_/_then_else_ x P
+
data W {s p} (S : Set s) (P : S → Set p) : Set (s ⊔ p) where
_◁_ : (s : S) → (P s → W S P) → W S P
rec : ∀ {a b} {S : Set a} {P : S → Set b}
- (C : W S P → Set) → -- some conclusion we hope holds
- ((s : S) → -- given a shape...
- (f : P s → W S P) → -- ...and a bunch of kids...
- ((p : P s) → C (f p)) → -- ...and C for each kid in the bunch...
- C (s ◁ f)) → -- ...does C hold for the node?
- (x : W S P) → -- If so, ...
- C x -- ...C always holds.
+ (C : W S P → Set) → -- some conclusion we hope holds
+ ((s : S) → -- given a shape...
+ (f : P s → W S P) → -- ...and a bunch of kids...
+ ((p : P s) → C (f p)) → -- ...and C for each kid in the bunch...
+ C (s ◁ f)) → -- ...does C hold for the node?
+ (x : W S P) → -- If so, ...
+ C x -- ...C always holds.
rec C c (s ◁ f) = c s f (λ p → rec C c (f p))
+
+module Examples-→ where
+ open ITT
+
+ data ℕ : Set where
+ zero : ℕ
+ suc : ℕ → ℕ
+
+ -- These pragmas are needed so we can use number literals.
+ {-# BUILTIN NATURAL ℕ #-}
+ {-# BUILTIN ZERO zero #-}
+ {-# BUILTIN SUC suc #-}
+
+ data List (A : Set) : Set where
+ [] : List A
+ _∷_ : A → List A → List A
+
+ length : ∀ {A} → List A → ℕ
+ length [] = zero
+ length (_ ∷ l) = suc (length l)
+
+ _>_ : ℕ → ℕ → Set
+ zero > _ = Empty
+ suc _ > zero = Unit
+ suc x > suc y = x > y
+
+ head : ∀ {A} → (l : List A) → length l > 0 → A
+ head [] p = absurd p
+ head (x ∷ _) _ = x
+
+module Examples-× where
+ open ITT
+ open Examples-→
+
+ even : ℕ → Set
+ even zero = Unit
+ even (suc zero) = Empty
+ even (suc (suc n)) = even n
+
+ 6-even : even 6
+ 6-even = tt
+
+ 5-not-even : ¬ (even 5)
+ 5-not-even = absurd
+
+ there-is-an-even-number : ℕ × even
+ there-is-an-even-number = 6 , 6-even
+
+ _∨_ : (A B : Set) → Set
+ A ∨ B = Bool × (λ b → if b then A else B)
+
+ left : ∀ {A B} → A → A ∨ B
+ left x = true , x
+
+ right : ∀ {A B} → B → A ∨ B
+ right x = false , x
+
+ [_,_] : {A B C : Set} → (A → C) → (B → C) → A ∨ B → C
+ [ f , g ] x =
+ (if (fst x) / (λ b → if b then _ else _ → _) then f else g) (snd x)
+
+module Examples-W where
+ open ITT
+ open Examples-×
+
+ Tr : Bool → Set
+ Tr b = if b then Unit else Empty
+
+ ℕ : Set
+ ℕ = W Bool Tr
+
+ zero : ℕ
+ zero = false ◁ absurd
+
+ suc : ℕ → ℕ
+ suc n = true ◁ (λ _ → n)
+
+ plus : ℕ → ℕ → ℕ
+ plus x y = rec
+ (λ _ → ℕ)
+ (λ b →
+ if b / (λ b → (Tr b → ℕ) → (Tr b → ℕ) → ℕ)
+ then (λ _ f → (suc (f tt))) else (λ _ _ → y))
+ x
+
+ List : (A : Set) → Set
+ List A = W (A ∨ Unit) (λ s → Tr (fst s))
+
+ [] : ∀ {A} → List A
+ [] = (false , tt) ◁ absurd
+
+ _∷_ : ∀ {A} → A → List A → List A
+ x ∷ l = (true , x) ◁ (λ _ → l)
+
+ _++_ : ∀ {A} → List A → List A → List A
+ l₁ ++ l₂ = rec
+ (λ _ → List _ → List _)
+ (λ s f c l → {!!})
+ l₁ l₂
+
+module Equality where
+ open ITT
+
+ data _≡_ {a} {A : Set a} : A → A → Set a where
+ refl : ∀ x → x ≡ x
+
+ ≡-elim : ∀ {a b} {A : Set a}
+ (P : (x y : A) → x ≡ y → Set b) →
+ ∀ {x y} → P x x (refl x) → (x≡y : x ≡ y) → P x y x≡y
+ ≡-elim P p (refl x) = p
+
+ subst : ∀ {A : Set} (P : A → Set) → ∀ {x y} → (x≡y : x ≡ y) → P x → P y
+ subst P x≡y p = ≡-elim (λ _ y _ → P y) p x≡y
+
+ sym : ∀ {A : Set} (x y : A) → x ≡ y → y ≡ x
+ sym x y p = subst (λ y′ → y′ ≡ x) p (refl x)
+
+ trans : ∀ {A : Set} (x y z : A) → x ≡ y → y ≡ z → x ≡ z
+ trans x y z p q = subst (λ z′ → x ≡ z′) q p
+
+ cong : ∀ {A B : Set} (x y : A) → x ≡ y → (f : A → B) → f x ≡ f y
+ cong x y p f = subst (λ z → f x ≡ f z) p (refl (f x))
\end{code}
-\nocite{*}
+\subsubsection{\mykant}
+
+The following things are missing: $\mytyc{W}$-types, since our
+positivity check is overly strict, and equality, since we haven't
+implemented that yet.
+
+{\small
+\verbatiminput{itt.ka}
+}
+
+\subsection{\mykant\ examples}
+
+{\small
+\verbatiminput{examples.ka}
+}
+
+\subsection{\mykant's hierachy}
+
+This rendition of the Hurken's paradox does not type check with the
+hierachy enabled, type checks and loops without it. Adapted from an
+Agda version, available at
+\url{http://code.haskell.org/Agda/test/succeed/Hurkens.agda}.
+
+{\small
+\verbatiminput{hurkens.ka}
+}
+
\bibliographystyle{authordate1}
\bibliography{thesis}
projects / bitonic-mengthesis.git / blobdiff