Abstract
The original motivation1 for the work described in this paper was to determine the proof theoretic strength of the type theories implemented in the proof development systems Lego and Coq, [12],[4]. These type theories combine the impredicative type of propositions2, from the calculus of constructions, [5], with the inductive types and hierarchy of type universes of Martin-Löf’s constructive type theory, [13]. Intuitively there is an easy way to determine an upper bound on the proof theoretic strength. This is to use the ‘obvious’ types-as-sets interpretation of these type theories in a strong enough classical axiomatic set theory. The elementary forms of type of Martin-Löf’s type theory have their familiar set theoretic interpretation, the impredicative type of propositions can be interpreted as a two element set and the hierarchy of type universes can be interpreted using a corresponding hierarchy of strongly inaccessible cardinal numbers. The assumption of the existence of these cardinal numbers goes beyond the proof theoretic strength of ZFC. But Martin-Löf’s type theory, even with its W types and its hierarchy of universes, is not fully impredicative and has proof theoretic strength way below that of second order arithmetic. So it is not clear that the strongly inaccessible cardinals used in our upper bound are really needed. Of course the impredicative type of propositions does give a fully impredicative type theory, which certainly pushes up the proof theoretic strength to a set theory3, Z−, whose strength is well above that of second order arithmetic. The hierarchy of type universes will clearly lead to some further strengthening. But is it necessary to go beyond ZFC to get an upper bound?
This paper was written while on sabbatical leave from Manchester University. I am grateful to my two departments for making this possible. I am also grateful to Nijmegen University Computer Science Department for supporting my visit there. Some of the ideas for this paper were developed during that visit.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Peter Aczel, The Type Theoretic Interpretation of Constructive Set Theory, in: MacIntyre, A., Pacholski, L., Paris, J. (eds), Logic Colloquium’ 77, (North Holland, Amsterdam, 1978). pp2, 13, 16
Peter Aczel, The Type Theoretic Interpretation of Constructive Set Theory: Choice Principles, in: Troelstra, S. S., van Dalen, D. (eds),The L. E. J. Brouwer Centenary Symposium, (North Holland, Amsterdam, 1982). 2, 16
Peter Aczel, The Type Theoretic Interpretation of Constructive Set Theory: Inductive Definitions, in: Marcus, R. B. et al. (eds), Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science VII, (North Holland, Amsterdam, 1986). 2, 13, 16, 17
Barras et al. The Coq Proof Assistant Reference Manual, Version 6.1 INRIA Technical Report, 1996. 1
Thierry Coquand, Metamathematical Investigations of a Calculus of Constructions. In P. Oddifredi (editor), Logic and Computer Science. Academic Press, 1990. 1
Peter Dybjer, Inductive sets and families in Martin-Löf’s type theory and their settheoretic semantics. In Gerard Huet and Gordon Plotkin (editors), Logical Frameworks, pp 280–306, Prentice Hall, 1991. 2
Peter Dybjer, A general formulation of simultaneous inductive-recursive definitions in type theory. To appear in The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 1999? 2
Peter Dybjer and Anton Setzer, A finite axiomatization of inductive-recursive definitions. To appear in Proceedings of TLCA 1999, LNCS. 2
Solomon Feferman, Hilbert’s Program Relativised: Proof-Theoretical and Foundational Reductions, Journal of Symbolic Logic, Vol 53, (1988) 364–384. 3
Ed. Griffor and Michael Rathjen, The Strength of some Martin-Löf type theories, Archiv for Mathematical Logic 33 (1994) 347–385. 2, 16
Ed. Griffor and Michael Rathjen, Inaccessibility in Constructive Set Theory and type theory, Technical Report U. U. D. M. 1996:20, Department of Mathematics, Uppsala University. 2, 14, 16
Zhaohui Luo and Randy Pollack, LEGO Proof Development System: User’s Manual, Edinburgh University Computer Science Department Technical Report, ECSLFCS-92-211, 1992. 1
Per Martin-Löf, Intuitionistic type Theory. Studies in Proof Theory, Bibliopolis, 1984. 1
Michael Rathjen, The Realm of Ordinal Analysis, To appear in S. B. Cooper, J. K. Truss (eds.): Sets and Proofs, Proceedings of the Logic Cooloquium’ 97, Cambridge University Press. 3
Benjamin Werner, Sets in Types, Types in Sets, TACS’ 97, LNCS 1281. 1, 2
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1999 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Aczel, P. (1999). On Relating Type Theories and Set Theories. In: Altenkirch, T., Reus, B., Naraschewski, W. (eds) Types for Proofs and Programs. TYPES 1998. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1657. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-48167-2_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-48167-2_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-66537-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-48167-6
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive