You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Question: Can we typecheck FLaTeX expressions based on weak type annotations directly or do we need to translate them to a foundation?
Obviously, translation to e.g. MitM allows for type checking, but also requires decent alignment coverage.
Additionally/Alternatively: Maybe we can use realms (see #12) for this?
E.g. both a module for set theory and a module for type theory could provide pillars for an interface theory for implication, the former instantiates it with a set of pairs, the latter by a primitive constructor with inference rules. Then an expression containing only symbols for which pillars in type theory (or symbols which have definitions <- recurse) exist could be trivially translated to LF/MitM/LATIN2. "Type theory modules" in FLaTeX/FLOMDoc could be trivially aligned with LF/LATIN2/MitM concepts.
Similarly, a module for natural numbers could have a pillar for the Von Neumann construction, indicating how to translate it to ZF (or a weaker set theory - we only need infinity, extensionality and restricted comprehension, I think?), whereas the peano-axiomatic face-theory naturally yields a "type theoretic" pillar.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Question: Can we typecheck FLaTeX expressions based on weak type annotations directly or do we need to translate them to a foundation?
Obviously, translation to e.g. MitM allows for type checking, but also requires decent alignment coverage.
Additionally/Alternatively: Maybe we can use realms (see #12) for this?
E.g. both a module for set theory and a module for type theory could provide pillars for an interface theory for implication, the former instantiates it with a set of pairs, the latter by a primitive constructor with inference rules. Then an expression containing only symbols for which pillars in type theory (or symbols which have definitions <- recurse) exist could be trivially translated to LF/MitM/LATIN2. "Type theory modules" in FLaTeX/FLOMDoc could be trivially aligned with LF/LATIN2/MitM concepts.
Similarly, a module for natural numbers could have a pillar for the Von Neumann construction, indicating how to translate it to ZF (or a weaker set theory - we only need infinity, extensionality and restricted comprehension, I think?), whereas the peano-axiomatic face-theory naturally yields a "type theoretic" pillar.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: