Cleaned up Trinitarianism.Quest0.agda
This commit is contained in:
kl-i
parent
0ccb79bd40
commit
0cd65c6cd9
@ -1,324 +1,23 @@
|
||||
module Trinitarianism.Quest0 where
|
||||
open import Trinitarianism.Quest0Preamble
|
||||
|
||||
private
|
||||
postulate
|
||||
u : Level
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
{-
|
||||
There are three ways of looking at `A : Type u`.
|
||||
- proof theoretically, '`A` is a proposition'
|
||||
- type theoretically, '`A` is a construction'
|
||||
- categorically, '`A` is an object in category `Type u`'
|
||||
|
||||
We will explain what u : Level and Type u is at the end.
|
||||
|
||||
A first example of a type construction is the function type.
|
||||
Given types `A` and `B`, we have another type `A → B` which can be seen as
|
||||
- the proposition '`A` implies `B`'
|
||||
- the construction 'ways to convert `A` recipes to `B` recipes'
|
||||
- internal hom of the category `Type u`
|
||||
|
||||
To give examples of this, let's make some types first!
|
||||
-}
|
||||
|
||||
-- Here is how we define 'true'
|
||||
data ⊤ : Type u where
|
||||
trivial : ⊤
|
||||
|
||||
{-
|
||||
|
||||
It reads '`⊤` is an inductive type with a constructor `trivial`',
|
||||
with three interpretations
|
||||
- `⊤` is a proposition and there is a proof of it, called `trivial`.
|
||||
- `⊤` is a construction with a recipe called `trivial`
|
||||
- `⊤` is a terminal object: every object has a morphism into `⊤` given by `· ↦ trivial`
|
||||
|
||||
The above tells you how we _make_ a term of type `⊤`,
|
||||
let's see an example of _using_ a term of type `⊤`:
|
||||
-}
|
||||
|
||||
TrueToTrue : ⊤ → ⊤
|
||||
TrueToTrue = {!!}
|
||||
|
||||
{-
|
||||
- press `C-c C-l` (this means `Ctrl-c Ctrl-l`) to load the document,
|
||||
and now you can fill the holes
|
||||
- navigate to the hole `{ }` using `C-c C-f` (forward) or `C-c C-b` (backward)
|
||||
- press `C-c C-r` and agda will try to help you (r for refine)
|
||||
- you should see `λ x → { }`
|
||||
- navigate to the new hole
|
||||
- `C-c C-,` to check the goal (`C-c C-comma`)
|
||||
- the Goal area should look like
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
Goal: ⊤
|
||||
—————————————————————————
|
||||
x : ⊤
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
- you have a proof/recipe/generalized element `x : ⊤`
|
||||
and you need to give a p/r/g.e. of `⊤`
|
||||
- you can give it a p/r/g.e. of `⊤` and press `C-c C-SPC` to fill the hole
|
||||
|
||||
There is more than one proof (see solutions) - are they the same?
|
||||
Here is an important one:
|
||||
-}
|
||||
TrueToTrue' : ⊤ → ⊤
|
||||
TrueToTrue' x = {!!}
|
||||
|
||||
{-
|
||||
|
||||
- Naviagate to the hole and check the goal.
|
||||
- Note `x` is already taken out for you.
|
||||
- You can try type `x` in the hole and `C-c C-c`
|
||||
- `c` stands for 'cases on `x`' and the only case is `trivial`.
|
||||
|
||||
Built into the definition of `⊤` is agda's way of making a map out of ⊤
|
||||
into another type A, which we have just used.
|
||||
It says to map out of ⊤ it suffices to do the case when `x` is `trivial`, or
|
||||
- the only proof of `⊤` is `trivial`
|
||||
- the only recipe for `⊤` is `trivial`
|
||||
- the only one generalized element `trivial` in `⊤`
|
||||
-}
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
-- Here is how we define 'false'
|
||||
data ⊥ : Type u where
|
||||
|
||||
{-
|
||||
|
||||
It reads '`⊥` is an inductive type with no constructors',
|
||||
with three interepretations
|
||||
- `⊥` is a proposition with no proofs
|
||||
- `⊥` is a construction with no recipes
|
||||
- There are no generalized elements of `⊥` (it is a strict initial object)
|
||||
|
||||
Let's try mapping out of `⊥`.
|
||||
-}
|
||||
|
||||
explosion : ⊥ → ⊤
|
||||
explosion x = {!!}
|
||||
|
||||
{-
|
||||
|
||||
- Navigate to the hole and do cases on `x`.
|
||||
|
||||
Agda knows that there are no cases so there is nothing to do!
|
||||
This has three interpretations:
|
||||
- false implies anything (principle of explosion)
|
||||
- ?
|
||||
- ⊥ is initial in the category `Type u`
|
||||
|
||||
-}
|
||||
|
||||
{-
|
||||
We can also encode "natural numbers" as a type.
|
||||
-}
|
||||
data ℕ : Type where
|
||||
data ℕ : Type u where
|
||||
zero : ℕ
|
||||
suc : ℕ → ℕ
|
||||
{-
|
||||
As a construction, this reads '
|
||||
- ℕ is a type of construction
|
||||
- `zero` is a recipe for ℕ
|
||||
- `suc` takes an existing recipe for ℕ and gives
|
||||
another recipe for ℕ.
|
||||
'
|
||||
|
||||
We can see `ℕ` as a categorical notion:
|
||||
ℕ is a natural numbers object in the category `Type u`,
|
||||
with `zero : ⊤ → ℕ` and `suc : ℕ → ℕ` such that
|
||||
given any `⊤ → A → A` there exist a unique morphism `ℕ → A`
|
||||
such that the diagram commutes:
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
This has no interpretation as a proposition since
|
||||
there are too many terms,
|
||||
since mathematicians classically didn't distinguish
|
||||
between proofs of the same thing.
|
||||
(ZFC doesn't even mention logic internally,
|
||||
unlike Type Theory!)
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
-}
|
||||
|
||||
postulate
|
||||
A : Type u
|
||||
|
||||
NNO : A → (A → A) → (ℕ → A)
|
||||
NNO a s zero = a
|
||||
NNO a s (suc n) = s (NNO a s n)
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
{-
|
||||
Let's assume we have the following the naturals ℕ
|
||||
and try to define the 'predicate on ℕ' given by 'x is 0'
|
||||
-}
|
||||
isZero : ℕ → Type u
|
||||
isZero zero = {!!}
|
||||
isZero (suc n) = {!!}
|
||||
|
||||
{-
|
||||
Here's how:
|
||||
* when x is zero, we give the proposition ⊤
|
||||
(try typing it in by writing \top then pressing C-c C-SPC)
|
||||
* when x is suc n (i.e. 'n + 1', suc for successor) we give ⊥ (\bot)
|
||||
This is technically using induction - see AsTypes.
|
||||
|
||||
In general a 'predicate on ℕ' is just a 'function' P : ℕ → Type u
|
||||
-}
|
||||
|
||||
{-
|
||||
You can check if zero is indeed zero by clicking C-c C-n,
|
||||
which brings up a thing on the bottom saying 'Expression',
|
||||
and you can type the following
|
||||
isZero zero
|
||||
isZero (suc zero)
|
||||
isZero (suc (suc zero))
|
||||
...
|
||||
-}
|
||||
|
||||
{-
|
||||
We can prove that 'there exists a natural number that isZero'
|
||||
in set theory we might write
|
||||
∃ x ∈ ℕ, x = 0
|
||||
which in agda noation is
|
||||
Σ ℕ isZero
|
||||
|
||||
In general if we have predicate P : ℕ → Type u we would write
|
||||
Σ ℕ P
|
||||
for
|
||||
∃ x ∈ ℕ, P x
|
||||
|
||||
To formulate the result Σ ℕ isZero we need to define
|
||||
a proof of it
|
||||
-}
|
||||
ExistsZero : Σ ℕ isZero
|
||||
ExistsZero = {!!}
|
||||
|
||||
{-
|
||||
To fill the hole, we need to give a natural and a proof that it is zero.
|
||||
Agda will give the syntax you need:
|
||||
* navigate to the correct hole then refine using C-c C-r
|
||||
* there are now two holes - but which is which?
|
||||
* navigate to the first holes and type C-c C-,
|
||||
- for the first hole it will ask you to give it a natural 'Goal: ℕ'
|
||||
- for the second hole it will ask you for a proof that
|
||||
whatever you put in the first hole is zero 'Goal: isZero ?0' for example
|
||||
* try to fill both holes, using C-c C-SPC as before
|
||||
* for the second hole you can try also C-c C-r,
|
||||
Agda knows there is an obvious proof!
|
||||
-}
|
||||
|
||||
{-
|
||||
Let's show 'if all natural numbers are zero then we have a contradiction',
|
||||
where 'a contradiction' is a proof of ⊥.
|
||||
In maths we would write
|
||||
(∀ x ∈ ℕ, x = 0) → ⊥
|
||||
and the agda notation for this is
|
||||
((x : ℕ) → isZero x) → ⊥
|
||||
|
||||
In general if we have a predicate P : ℕ → Prop then we write
|
||||
(x : ℕ) → P x
|
||||
to mean
|
||||
∀ x ∈ ℕ, P x
|
||||
-}
|
||||
|
||||
AllZero→⊥ : ((x : ℕ) → isZero x) → ⊥
|
||||
AllZero→⊥ = {!!}
|
||||
|
||||
{-
|
||||
Here is how we prove it in maths
|
||||
* assume hypothesis h, a proof of (x : ℕ) → isZero x
|
||||
* apply the hypothesis h to 1, deducing isZero 1, i.e. we get a proof of isZero 1
|
||||
* notice isZero 1 IS ⊥
|
||||
|
||||
Here is how you can prove it here
|
||||
* navigate to the hole and check the goal
|
||||
* to assume the hypothesis (x : ℕ) → isZero x,
|
||||
type an h in front like so
|
||||
AllZero→⊥ h = { }
|
||||
* now do
|
||||
* C-c C-l to load the file
|
||||
* navigate to the new hole and check the new goal
|
||||
* type h in the hole, type C-c C-r
|
||||
* this should give h { }
|
||||
* navigate to the new hole and check the Goal
|
||||
* Explanation
|
||||
* (h x) is a proof of isZero x for each x
|
||||
* it's now asking for a natural x such that isZero x is ⊥
|
||||
* Try filling the hole with 0 and 1 and see what Agda says
|
||||
-}
|
||||
|
||||
{-
|
||||
Let's try to show the mathematical statement
|
||||
'any natural n is 0 or not'
|
||||
but we need a definition of 'or'
|
||||
-}
|
||||
data OR (P Q : Type u) : Type u where
|
||||
left : P → OR P Q
|
||||
right : Q → OR P Q
|
||||
{-
|
||||
This reads
|
||||
* Given propositions P and Q we have another proposition P or Q
|
||||
* There are two ways of proving P or Q
|
||||
* given a proof of P, left sends this to a proof of P or Q
|
||||
* given a proof of Q, right sends this to a proof of P or Q
|
||||
|
||||
Agda supports nice notation using underscores.
|
||||
-}
|
||||
|
||||
data _∨_ (P Q : Type u) : Type u where
|
||||
left : P → P ∨ Q
|
||||
right : Q → P ∨ Q
|
||||
|
||||
{-
|
||||
[Important note]
|
||||
Agda is sensitive to spaces so these are bad
|
||||
|
||||
data _ ∨ _ (P Q : Prop) : Prop where
|
||||
left : P → P ∨ Q
|
||||
right : Q → P ∨ Q
|
||||
|
||||
data _∨_ (P Q : Prop) : Prop where
|
||||
left : P → P∨Q
|
||||
right : Q → P∨Q
|
||||
|
||||
it is also sensitive to indentation so these are also bad
|
||||
|
||||
data _∨_ (P Q : Prop) : Prop where
|
||||
left : P → P ∨ Q
|
||||
right : Q → P ∨ Q
|
||||
|
||||
-}
|
||||
|
||||
{-
|
||||
Now we can prove it!
|
||||
This technically uses induction - see AsTypes.
|
||||
Fill the missing part of the theorem statement.
|
||||
You need to first uncomment this by getting rid of the -- in front (C-x C-;)
|
||||
-}
|
||||
-- DecidableIsZero : (n : ℕ) → {!!}
|
||||
-- DecidableIsZero zero = {!!}
|
||||
-- DecidableIsZero (suc n) = {!!}
|
||||
|
||||
-- TODO terms and types
|
||||
-- TODO universe levels
|
||||
|
||||
@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ There are three ways of looking at `A : Type u`.
|
||||
- type theoretically, '`A` is a construction'
|
||||
- categorically, '`A` is an object in category `Type u`'
|
||||
|
||||
We will explain what u : Level and Type u is at the end.
|
||||
We will explain what u : Level and Type u is at the end of Quest1.
|
||||
|
||||
A first example of a type construction is the function type.
|
||||
Given types `A` and `B`, we have another type `A → B` which can be seen as
|
||||
|
||||
@ -1,4 +1,3 @@
|
||||
|
||||
module Trinitarianism.Quest0Preamble where
|
||||
|
||||
open import Cubical.Core.Everything hiding (_∨_) public
|
||||
|
||||
BIN
_build/2.6.3/agda/Trinitarianism/Quest0Preamble.agdai
Normal file
BIN
_build/2.6.3/agda/Trinitarianism/Quest0Preamble.agdai
Normal file
Binary file not shown.
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user