Induction Is Not Derivable in Second Order Dependent Type Theory

  • Herman Geuvers
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2044)


This paper proves the non-derivability of induction in second order dependent type theory (λP2). This is done by providing a model construction for λP2, based on a saturated sets like interpretation of types as sets of terms of a weakly extensional combinatory algebra. We give counter-models in which the induction principle over natural numbers is not valid. The proof does not depend on the specific encoding for natural numbers that has been chosen (like e.g. polymorphic Church numerals), so in fact we prove that there can not be an encoding of natural numbers in λP2 such that the induction principle is satisfied. The method extends immediately to other data types, like booleans, lists, trees, etc.

In the process of the proof we establish some general properties of the models, which we think are of independent interest. Moreover, we show that the Axiom of Choice is not derivable in λP2.


Natural Number Data Type Free Variable Reduction Rule Combinatory Logic 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [Barendregt 1973]
    H.P. Barendregt, Combinatory Logic and the Axiom of Choice, in Indagationes Mathematicae, vol. 35,nr. 3, pp. 203–221.Google Scholar
  2. [Barendregt 1992]
    H.P. Barendregt, Typed lambda calculi. In Handbook of Logic in Computer Science, eds. Abramski et al., Oxford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  3. [Berardi 1993]
    S. Berardi, Encoding of data types in Pure Construction Calculus: a semantic justification, in Logical Environments, eds. G. Huet and G. Plotkin, Cambridge University Press, pp 30–60.Google Scholar
  4. [Coquand 1990]
    Th. Coquand, Metamathematical investigations of a calculus of constructions. In Logic and Computer Science, ed. P.G. Odifreddi, APIC series, vol. 31, Academic Press, pp 91–122.Google Scholar
  5. [Coquand and Huet 1988]
    Th. Coquand and G. Huet, The calculus of constructions, Information and Computation, 76, pp 95–120.Google Scholar
  6. [Geuvers 1993]
    J.H. Geuvers, Logics and Type systems, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Nijmegen, Netherlands.Google Scholar
  7. [Geuvers 1996]
    J.H. Geuvers, Extending models of second order logic to models of second order dependent type theory, Computer Science Logic, Utrecht, eds. D. van Dalen and M. Bezem, LNCS 1258, 1997, pp 167–181.Google Scholar
  8. [Hyland and Ong 1993]
    J.M.E. Hyland and C.-H. L. Ong, Modified realizability toposes and strong normalization proofs. In Typed Lambda Calculi and Applications, Proceedings, eds. M. Bezem and J.F. Groote, LNCS 664, pp. 179–194, Springer-Verlag, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [Girard et al. 1989]
    J.-Y. Girard, Y. Lafont and P. Taylor, Proofs and types, Camb. Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science 7, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. [Longo and Moggi 1988]
    G. Longo and E. Moggi, Constructive Natural Deduction and its “Modest” Interpretation. Report CMU-CS-88-131.Google Scholar
  11. [Stefanova and Geuvers 1996]
    M. Stefanova and J.H. Geuvers, A Simple Model Construction for the Calculus of Constructions, in Types for Proofs and Programs, Int. Workshop, Torino, eds. S. Berardi and M. Coppo, LNCS 1158, 1996, pp. 249–264.Google Scholar
  12. [Streicher 1991]
    T. Streicher, Independence of the induction principle and the axiom of choice in the pure calculus of constructions, TCS 103(2), pp 395–409.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Herman Geuvers
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of NijmegenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations