DOCSLIB.ORG

On Constructive Sets and Partial Structures

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
On Constructive Sets and Partial Structures Formal Logic is, no doubt, safest with symbols; should, perhaps, content itself with A and B; or, at least, hardly venture beyond Y and Z. —fromLogic, Deductive and Inductive, by Carveth Read (1848–1931), Grote Professor of the Philosophy of Mind and Logic, University College London. List of papers This thesis is based on the following papers, which are referred to in the text by their Roman numerals. I Wilander, K.O. Setoids and universes, Mathematical Structures in Com- puter Science 20 (2010), 563–576. II Wilander, K.O. An E-bicategory of E-categories: exemplifying a type- theoretic approach to bicategories, U.U.D.M. Report 2005:48. III Wilander, K.O. Constructing a small category of setoids, Mathematical Structures in Computer Science, in press. ω IV Wilander, K.O. PERs in HA I: basic constructions and choice princi- ples, U.U.D.M. Report 2011:17. V Wilander, K.O. Some proof-theoretic properties of PHL and related sys- tems, U.U.D.M. Report 2010:18. Reprints were made with permission from the publishers. In addition to these papers, the author has also published Wilander, K.O. Soundness in verification of algebraic specifications with OBJ, Journal of Logic and Algebraic Programming 74 (2007-2008), 112–114. Contents 1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 9 1.1 Justifications and the BHK-interpretation ............................................. 9 1.2 Type theory ........................................................................................... 11 1.3 Setoids and E-categories ...................................................................... 13 2 Summaries of the papers ............................................................................. 15 2.1 Paper I: Setoids and universes ............................................................. 15 2.2 Paper II: An E-bicategory of E-categories .......................................... 17 2.3 Paper III: Constructing a small category of setoids ........................... 18 ω 2.4 Paper IV: PERs in HA I: basic constructions and choice principles ............................................................................................... 22 2.5 Paper V: Some proof-theoretic properties of PHL and related systems .................................................................................................. 24 3 Sammanfattning på svenska ........................................................................ 28 Acknowledgements .......................................................................................... 31 References ........................................................................................................ 32 1. Introduction When I make a claim, such as There are two irrational numbers α and β such that αβ is rational. there are several questions that can be asked. You first question may well be ‘Is this claim true?’ – and I will answer that it is true. If you are not fully satisfied by this answer, you might then ask me to justify my claim. I will then tell you to consider the two numbers α = e and β = ln2. The first thing we notice is that αβ = 2 is rational. We are both well aware that e is a transcendental irrational number – it is not the solution of any polynomial equation with rational coefficients. So all I must convince you of is that ln2 is p not rational. So suppose ln2 were rational, in fact, suppose ln2 = /q. Then we would have ep/q = 2, and consequently, ep = 2q. But this would mean that e were a solution to the polynomial equation xp = 2q (which has rational coefficients), contradicting the fact that e is transcendental. Thus, we conclude that ln2 is not rational. In this way, I have justified my original claim – and consequently, you are now (hopefully) convinced that it is true. Constructive mathematics, the subject of this thesis, seeks direct justifica- tions for mathematical statements. Having a direct justification of a statement should convince us that this statement is true – but being convinced that a certain statement is true does not necessarily mean that we can produce a jus- tification for it (not even if we are right). This idea of giving justifications for statements has been given several dif- ferent forms. I will give a brief introduction to one of them, namely Martin- Löf type theory (sometimes known as intuitionistic type theory). This will be followed by short explanations of the main objects of interest in the included papers, before the papers are summarised in the next chapter. 1.1 Justifications and the BHK-interpretation The most basic description of justifications is the so-called Brouwer-Heyting- Kolmogorov–interpretation of predicate logic (usually shortened to the BHK- interpretation). It explains what the canonical justifications are for statements on all logical forms. The discussion here is brief; for more background, see for example [24]. 9 First some notation and terminology: that p is a justification for the state- ment φ is written p:φ, and we call p a proof object for φ (often shortened simply to a proof of φ). We can now give the BHK-interpretation of the logi- cal connectives. • A proof object for a conjunction φ ∧ψ is a pair p,q, where p is a proof object for φ and q is a proof object for ψ. • A proof object for a disjunction φ ∨ ψ can be of two forms: it is either inl p for a proof object p:φ,oritisinrq for a proof object q:ψ (we can think of this as giving a proof object and pointing out which one of the disjuncts it is a proof object for). • A proof object for an implication φ → ψ is an algorithm (or method of computation) which from a hypothetical proof object for φ constructs a proof object for ψ. • A proof object for the contradiction ⊥ does not exist. • A proof object for an existential statement (∃x:A)φ(x) is a pair a, p, where a is an element of the set A, and p is a proof object for the state- ment φ(a). • A proof object for a universal statement (∀x:A)φ(x) is an algorithm which from a hypothetical element x of the set A computes a proof object for the statement φ(x). To this we must add a description of what the proof objects for our basic (atomic) propositions are. As an example, the canonical way of justifying an equality s = t between two terms is to compute the value of both terms separately, and certify that the results agree. This justification has an important property: if I tell you that two terms compute to the same value, you can easily check this, simply by carrying out the computation yourself. In other words, you can check that the justification I gave you is correct. The negation is not in the list above, since we define ¬φ to be the impli- cation φ →⊥. This means that to justify a negated statement ¬φ, we must provide an algorithm which, given a proof of φ, produces a proof of ⊥. This requires more than there being no proof objects for φ: it amounts to a proof that there can not be any proof object for φ – and absence of proof is not proof of absence. As an important example, consider what a proof object for a doubly negated statement ¬¬φ would be: it would be an algorithm that arrives at a contradic- tion from a hypothetical proof of ¬φ. This is not the same thing as a proof object for φ, and there is no obvious way to use a proof object for ¬¬φ to compute one for φ – in fact, there is no general justification for the implica- tion ¬¬φ → φ. Compare this to the situation in classical logic, where each statement is assigned one of two truth values – true or false. It is easily checked that ¬¬φ and φ must always be assigned the same truth value, and then they are even equivalent. This shows that in classical logic, there are true statements for which we can not give a direct justification. 10 In classical logic, the statements φ and ¬φ will always be assigned different truth values, so φ ∨¬φ is valid for all φ – the law of excluded middle holds. The intuitionistic logic we get from considering proof objects does not include the law of excluded middle. But a constructive mathematician does not deny the law of excluded middle, she merely notes that it can not be justified. In fact, a constructive mathematician can not deny the law of excluded middle, since its double negation ¬¬(φ ∨¬φ) can be justified. 1.2 Type theory The BHK-interpretation is informal, and particularly it leaves the notion of an algorithm undefined. Type theory can be seen as one way of specifying this notion. Type theory rests on the idea of propositions as types (which can be seen as a further development of the Curry-Howard isomorphism [13]). We simply identify a proposition with the set of its proof objects (where the word ‘set’ should be understood not in the sense of set theory, but rather as a synonym for ‘data type’). This then identifies the logical connectives with particular type-forming operations. • The contradiction ⊥ is identified with the empty set. • The conjunction φ ∧ ψ is identified with the cartesian product φ × ψ. • The disjunction φ ∨ ψ is identified with the sum type φ + ψ (a disjoint union). • The implication φ → ψ is identified with the function type ψφ . • The existentially quantified statement (∃x:A)φ(x) is identified with the sigma type (or dependent sum) (Σx:A)φ(x). • The universally quantified statement (∀x:A)φ(x) is identified with the pi type (or dependent product) (Πx:A)φ(x). Of these, the first four are familiar, but the last two should be explained. In the quantified formulas, consider the subformula φ(x), with the variable x free. It is not in itself a proposition, but rather a propositional function – it assigns a proposition φ(a) to each a:A. But since we have identified propositions with sets, this is the same as saying that φ(x) is a family of sets, indexed by A. Such families of sets are key to understanding the dependent types. To understand the dependent sum and product, we must understand what it is to be an element of these sets.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Towards a Proof-Irrelevant Calculus of Inductive Constructions Philipp Haselwarter
    Towards a Proof-Irrelevant Calculus of Inductive Constructions Philipp Haselwarter To cite this version: Philipp Haselwarter. Towards a Proof-Irrelevant Calculus of Inductive Constructions. Programming Languages [cs.PL]. 2014. hal-01114573v2 HAL Id: hal-01114573 https://hal.inria.fr/hal-01114573v2 Submitted on 4 Mar 2016 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Towards a Proof-Irrelevant Calculus of Inductive Constructions Philipp Haselwarter under the supervision of Matthieu Sozeau, PPS and 휋푟2 2nd September 2014 Summary The general context Through the Curry-Howard correspondence, dependent type theories are ap- pealing to both the mathematical and the programming community. To the first, they provide an expressive logical framework, in which mathematics can be developed. To the second, they offer a functional programming lan- guage that allows to state precise invariants programs have to respect and to build certified proofs thereof. Several dependent type systems have been investigated and implemented, with some early ones geared more towards the mathematical community [Con+86; Pol94; Coq12], called proof-assistants, and later putting a stronger accent on their viability as a programming environment [McB99; Nor07; Soz08]. The Calculus of Inductive Constructions (pCIC) is one such theory that attempts to stay faithful to the correspondence and bridge the two worlds of programming and proving.
    [Show full text]
  • Addiction in Contemporary Mathematics FINAL 2020
    Addiction in Contemporary Mathematics Newcomb Greenleaf Goddard College [email protected] Abstract 1. The Agony of Constructive Math 2. Reductio and Truth 3. Excluding the Middle 4. Brouwer Seen from Princeton 5. Errett Bishop 6. Brouwer Encodes Ignorance 7. Constructive Sets 8. Kicking the Classical Habit 9. Schizophrenia 10. Constructive Mathematics and Algorithms 11. The Intermediate Value Theorem 12. Real Numbers and Complexity 13. Natural Deduction 14. Mathematical Pluralism 15. Addiction in History of Math Abstract In 1973 Errett Bishop (1928-1983) gave the title Schizophrenia in Contemporary Mathematics to his Colloquium Lectures at the summer meetings of the AMS (American Mathematical Society). It marked the end of his seven-year campaign for Constructive mathematics, an attempt to introduce finer distinctions into mathematical thought. Seven years earlier Bishop had been a young math superstar, able to launch his revolution with an invited address at the International 1 Congress of Mathematicians, a quadrennial event held in Cold War Moscow in 1966. He built on the work of L. E. J. Brouwer (1881-1966), who had discovered in 1908 that Constructive mathematics requires a more subtle logic, in which truth has a positive quality stronger than the negation of falsity. By 1973 Bishop had accepted that most of his mathematical colleagues failed to understand even the simplest Constructive mathematics, and came up with a diagnosis of schizophrenia for their disability. We now know, from Andrej Bauer’s 2017 article, Five Stages of Accepting Constructive Mathematics that a much better diagnosis would have been addiction, whence our title. While habits can be kicked, schizophrenia tends to last a lifetime, which made Bishop’s misdiagnosis a very serious mistake.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:2007.07560V4 [Math.LO] 8 Oct 2020
    ON THE UNCOUNTABILITY OF R DAG NORMANN AND SAM SANDERS Abstract. Cantor’s first set theory paper (1874) establishes the uncountabil- ity of R based on the following: for any sequence of reals, there is another real different from all reals in the sequence. The latter (in)famous result is well-studied and has been implemented as an efficient computer program. By contrast, the status of the uncountability of R is not as well-studied, and we therefore investigate the logical and computational properties of NIN (resp. NBI) the statement there is no injection (resp. bijection) from [0, 1] to N. While intuitively weak, NIN (and similar for NBI) is classified as rather strong on the ‘normal’ scale, both in terms of which comprehension axioms prove NIN and which discontinuous functionals compute (Kleene S1-S9) the real numbers from NIN from the data. Indeed, full second-order arithmetic is essential in each case. To obtain a classification in which NIN and NBI are weak, we explore the ‘non-normal’ scale based on (classically valid) continuity axioms and non- normal functionals, going back to Brouwer. In doing so, we derive NIN and NBI from basic theorems, like Arzel`a’s convergence theorem for the Riemann inte- gral (1885) and central theorems from Reverse Mathematics formulated with the standard definition of ‘countable set’ involving injections or bijections to N. Thus, the uncountability of R is a corollary to basic mainstream mathemat- ics; NIN and NBI are even (among) the weakest principles on the non-normal scale, which serendipitously reproves many of our previous results.
    [Show full text]
  • Computability and Analysis: the Legacy of Alan Turing
    Computability and analysis: the legacy of Alan Turing Jeremy Avigad Departments of Philosophy and Mathematical Sciences Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA [email protected] Vasco Brattka Faculty of Computer Science Universit¨at der Bundeswehr M¨unchen, Germany and Department of Mathematics and Applied Mathematics University of Cape Town, South Africa and Isaac Newton Institute for Mathematical Sciences Cambridge, United Kingdom [email protected] October 31, 2012 1 Introduction For most of its history, mathematics was algorithmic in nature. The geometric claims in Euclid’s Elements fall into two distinct categories: “problems,” which assert that a construction can be carried out to meet a given specification, and “theorems,” which assert that some property holds of a particular geometric configuration. For example, Proposition 10 of Book I reads “To bisect a given straight line.” Euclid’s “proof” gives the construction, and ends with the (Greek equivalent of) Q.E.F., for quod erat faciendum, or “that which was to be done.” arXiv:1206.3431v2 [math.LO] 30 Oct 2012 Proofs of theorems, in contrast, end with Q.E.D., for quod erat demonstran- dum, or “that which was to be shown”; but even these typically involve the construction of auxiliary geometric objects in order to verify the claim. Similarly, algebra was devoted to developing algorithms for solving equa- tions. This outlook characterized the subject from its origins in ancient Egypt and Babylon, through the ninth century work of al-Khwarizmi, to the solutions to the quadratic and cubic equations in Cardano’s Ars Magna of 1545, and to Lagrange’s study of the quintic in his R´eflexions sur la r´esolution alg´ebrique des ´equations of 1770.
    [Show full text]
  • Homotopy Type-Theoretic Interpretations of Constructive Set Theories
    Homotopy Type-Theoretic Interpretations of Constructive Set Theories Cesare Gallozzi Submitted in accordance with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy The University of Leeds School of Mathematics July 2018 The candidate confirms that the work submitted is his own and that appropriate credit has been given where reference has been made to the work of others. This copy has been supplied on the understanding that it is copyright material and that no quotation from the thesis may be published without proper acknowledge- ment. c 2018, The University of Leeds and Cesare Gallozzi The right of Cesare Gallozzi to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. To all my teachers. Acknowledgements I wish to thank all those who made this thesis possible. I thank all my teachers and in particular my supervisor Nicola Gambino for his tireless generosity and all the help and guidance he offered during the course of the PhD. I thank the University of Leeds and the School of Mathematics for their financial support. I thank all those who contributed to improve this thesis by answering my ques- tions or making comments on the material: my co-supervisor Michael Rathjen, and also Peter Hancock, John Truss, Stan Wainer, Martin Hofmann, Helmut Schwichtenberg, Michael Toppel, Anton Freund, Andrew Swan, Jakob Vidmar, Nicolai Kraus and Fredrik Nordvall Forsberg. I thank my parents and my grandmother for all their care and for encouraging my interests in science and mathematics since my early childhood.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:1710.10685V3
    EXACT COMPLETION AND CONSTRUCTIVE THEORIES OF SETS JACOPO EMMENEGGER AND ERIK PALMGREN† Abstract. In the present paper we use the theory of exact completions to study cat- egorical properties of small setoids in Martin-Löf type theory and, more generally, of models of the Constructive Elementary Theory of the Category of Sets, in terms of prop- erties of their subcategories of choice objects (i.e. objects satisfying the axiom of choice). Because of these intended applications, we deal with categories that lack equalisers and just have weak ones, but whose objects can be regarded as collections of global elements. In this context, we study the internal logic of the categories involved, and employ this analysis to give a sufficient condition for the local cartesian closure of an exact comple- tion. Finally, we apply this result to show when an exact completion produces a model of CETCS. 1. Introduction Following a tradition initiated by Bishop [7], the constructive notion of set is taken to be a collection of elements together with an equivalence relation on it, seen as the equality of the set. In Martin-Löf type theory this is realised with the notion of setoid, which consists of a type together with a type-theoretic equivalence relation on it [31]. An ancestor of this construction can be found in Gandy’s interpretation of the extensional theory of simple types into the intensional one [15]. A category-theoretic counterpart is provided by the exact completion construction Cex, which freely adds quotients of equivalence relations to a category C with (weak) finite limits [9, 11].
    [Show full text]
  • An Implementation of Effective Homotopy of Fibrations
    An implementation of effective homotopy of fibrations Ana Romero University of La Rioja, Spain Julio Rubio University of La Rioja, Spain Francis Sergeraert Université Joseph Fourier, France Abstract In this paper, we present a new module for the Kenzo system which makes it possible to com- pute the effective homotopy of the total space of a fibration, using the well-known long exact sequence of homotopy of a fibration defined by Jean-Pierre Serre. The programs are written in Common Lisp and require the implementation of new classes and functions corresponding to the definitions of setoid group (SG) and effective setoid group (ESG). Moreover, we have included a new module for working with finitely generated abelian groups, choosing the representation of a free presentation by means of a matrix in canonical form. These tools are then used to implement the long exact homotopy sequence of a fibration. We illustrate with examples some applications of our results. Keywords: Constructive algebraic topology, effective homotopy, fibrations, homotopy groups, Serre exact sequence, finitely generated groups, central extensions, setoid groups, effective setoid groups. 1. Introduction The problem of computing homology groups of topological spaces is well-known to be dif- ficult, for example when loop spaces or classifying spaces are involved. In particular, knowing the homology groups of a topological group or space does not imply that the homology groups of its classifying space or loop space can also be determined. In the same way, given a fibration F ,! E ! B, there does not exist a general algorithm computing the homology groups of E from the homology groups of B and F.
    [Show full text]
  • Two Set-Based Implementations of Quotients in Type Theory
    SPLST'15 Two Set-based Implementations of Quotients in Type Theory Niccol`oVeltri Institute of Cybernetics, Tallinn University of Technology Akadeemia tee 21, 12618 Tallinn, Estonia, [email protected] Abstract. We present and compare two different implementations of quotient types in Intensional Type Theory. We first introduce quotients as particular inductive-like types following Martin Hofmann's extension of Calculus of Constructions with quotient types [6]. Then we give an impredicative encoding of quotients. This implementation is reminiscent of Church numerals and more generally of encodings of inductive types in Calculus of Constructions. 1 Introduction In mathematics, given a set X and an equivalence relation R on X, the quotient set X=R is the set of equivalence classes of X with respect to R, i.e. X=R = f[x] j x 2 Xg, where [x] = fy 2 X j x R yg. An important example is the set of integer numbers, constructed as the quotient set (N × N)=SameDiff, where SameDiff (n1; m1)(n2; m2) if and only if n1 + m2 = n2 + m1. Another example is the set of real numbers, constructed as the quotient set Cauchy =Diff , where Q !0 Cauchy is the set of Cauchy sequences of rational numbers and Diff fx g fy g Q !0 n n if and only if the sequence fxn − yng converges to 0. A fundamental usage of quotients in programming is the construction of finite multisubsets of a given type X as \lists modulo permutations", and of finite subsets of X as \lists modulo permutations and multiplicity". In Martin-L¨oftype theory (MLTT) [8] and in Calculus of Inductive Con- structions (CIC) [1] quotients are typically represented by setoids.
    [Show full text]
  • Finitary Higher Inductive Types in the Groupoid Model
    MFPS 2017 Finitary Higher Inductive Types in the Groupoid Model Peter Dybjer1;2 Department of Computer Science and Engineering Chalmers University of Technology Gothenburg, Sweden Hugo Moeneclaey3 Ecole normale sup´erieure de Paris-Saclay Paris, France Abstract A higher inductive type of level 1 (a 1-hit) has constructors for points and paths only, whereas a higher inductive type of level 2 (a 2-hit) has constructors for surfaces too. We restrict attention to finitary higher inductive types and present general schemata for the types of their point, path, and surface constructors. We also derive the elimination and equality rules from the types of constructors for 1-hits and 2-hits. Moreover, we construct a groupoid model for dependent type theory with 2-hits and point out that we obtain a setoid model for dependent type theory with 1-hits by truncating the groupoid model. Keywords: intuitionistic type theory, identity types, homotopy type theory, higher inductive types, setoids, groupoids 1 Introduction Martin-L¨of[14] introduced the general identity type former I(A; a; a0), the elements of which are proofs that a and a0 are equal elements of A. Since A can be any type, even an identity type, we can iterate this type former and obtain an infinite tower of higher identity types A; I(A; a; a0); I(I(A; a; a0); p; p0); I(I(I(A; a; a0); p; p0); θ; θ0), etc. In extensional type theory [15,16] this hierarchy collapses, since it has a rule forcing I(A; a; a0) to have at most one element.
    [Show full text]
  • Advanced Features: Type Classes and Relations
    Advanced Features: Type Classes and Relations Pierre Cast´eran Suzhou, Paris, 2011 1 / 1 More details are given in Coq's reference manual, A tutorial will be available soon. We hope you will replay the proofs, enjoy, and try to use these features. Demo files : Power_Mono.v, Monoid.v, EMonoid.v, Trace_Monoid.v. The file Monoid_op_classes.v is given for advanced experiments only. In this lecture, we present shortly two quite new and useful features of the Coq system : Type classes are a nice way to formalize (mathematical) structures, User defined relations, and rewriting non-Leibniz \equalities" (i.e. for instance, equivalences). 2 / 1 Demo files : Power_Mono.v, Monoid.v, EMonoid.v, Trace_Monoid.v. The file Monoid_op_classes.v is given for advanced experiments only. In this lecture, we present shortly two quite new and useful features of the Coq system : Type classes are a nice way to formalize (mathematical) structures, User defined relations, and rewriting non-Leibniz \equalities" (i.e. for instance, equivalences). More details are given in Coq's reference manual, A tutorial will be available soon. We hope you will replay the proofs, enjoy, and try to use these features. 3 / 1 In this lecture, we present shortly two quite new and useful features of the Coq system : Type classes are a nice way to formalize (mathematical) structures, User defined relations, and rewriting non-Leibniz \equalities" (i.e. for instance, equivalences). More details are given in Coq's reference manual, A tutorial will be available soon. We hope you will replay the proofs, enjoy, and try to use these features.
    [Show full text]
  • Setoid Type Theory (Draft)
    Setoid type theory∗ (draft) Ambrus Kaposi September 3, 2018 Abstract In this paper we turn the setoid model of type theory into a syn- tactic translation. More specifically, we define three type theories and translations between them. The first one is MLTTProp which is plain in- tensional Martin-L¨oftype theory with a definitionally proof irrelevant id+funext+propext (strict) universe of propositions. MLTTProp extends this with a propositional identity type and the axioms of functional extensional- ity and propositional extensionality. The third theory is SeTT, setoid type theory which has built-in syntax for working with setoids. We show id+funext+propext how MLTTProp can be translated to MLTTProp using a syntactic translation which follows the structure of the setoid model of type theory. This translation (unlike the original setoid model) justifies a definitional computation rule for the identity type. A distinctive feature in SeTT is that the function space has two elim- inators: one is the usual application, the other expresses preservation of equality. We leave the treatment of a universe where identity is equality of codes as future work. 1 Introduction Intensional type theory lacks extensionality principles such as equality of point- wise equal functions, equality of equivalent propositions or quotient types. These can be added to type theory as axioms, however this destroys its computational behaviour. A systematic study of these principles was given in Hofmann's the- sis [13]. He suggests a setoid model of type theory which supports the previously mentioned concepts. In this model, a type is interpreted by a set together with an equivalence relation.
    [Show full text]
  • Mass Problems and Intuitionistic Higher-Order Logic
    Mass problems and intuitionistic higher-order logic Sankha S. Basu Department of Mathematics Pennsylvania State University University Park, PA 16802, USA http://www.personal.psu.edu/ssb168 [email protected] Stephen G. Simpson1 Department of Mathematics Pennsylvania State University University Park, PA 16802, USA http://www.math.psu.edu/simpson [email protected] First draft: February 7, 2014 This draft: August 30, 2018 Abstract In this paper we study a model of intuitionistic higher-order logic which we call the Muchnik topos. The Muchnik topos may be defined briefly as the category of sheaves of sets over the topological space consisting of the Turing degrees, where the Turing cones form a base for the topology. We note that our Muchnik topos interpretation of intuitionistic mathematics is an extension of the well known Kolmogorov/Muchnik interpretation of intuitionistic propositional calculus via Muchnik degrees, i.e., mass prob- lems under weak reducibility. We introduce a new sheaf representation of the intuitionistic real numbers, the Muchnik reals, which are different from the Cauchy reals and the Dedekind reals. Within the Muchnik topos we arXiv:1408.2763v1 [math.LO] 12 Aug 2014 obtain a choice principle (∀x ∃yA(x,y)) ⇒∃w ∀xA(x,wx) and a bound- ing principle (∀x ∃yA(x,y)) ⇒ ∃z ∀x ∃y (y ≤T (x,z) ∧ A(x,y)) where x,y,z range over Muchnik reals, w ranges over functions from Muchnik reals to Muchnik reals, and A(x,y) is a formula not containing w or z. For the convenience of the reader, we explain all of the essential back- ground material on intuitionism, sheaf theory, intuitionistic higher-order logic, Turing degrees, mass problems, Muchnik degrees, and Kolmogorov’s calculus of problems.
    [Show full text]