Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

On Tarski-style universes in type theory

+2
−0

I'm looking at this note about universes in type theory.

For Tarski-style universes (page 2), as far as I understand, the "a" in a:Ui are formal names of types, whereas the "Ti(a)" in Ti(a) type are actual types. What I don't understand is the purpose of "ui:Ui+1" and "Ti+1(ui)=Ui". Is there any intuitive explanation on why we have these two "axioms" (or whatever)?

Further, it is said in the remark on page 3 that Tarski-style universes can be formulated in LF:

Ui:Type; Ti:(Ui)Type; ui:Ui+1; Ti+1(ui)=Ui:Type

But how is this related to El(A) from the LF mentioned in my previous question? Is there any relationship between El() and Tj()?

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

0 comment threads

1 answer

+1
−0

I'm a bit confused about what you're confused about for the first part. In a Russell-style universe system, we'd have a hierarchy of universes with Ui:Ui+1, i.e. the ith universe is a type in the (i+1)th universe. As you state, for a Tarski-style universe system, Ui is a type of "codes" for types in the ith universe and Ti(a) for a:Ui is the "actual" type, i.e. a thing that can be to the right of a ":". Thus, there should be a code ui in Ui+1 that represents the fact that Ui is a type in the (i+1)th universe. That is, ui:Ui+1 and Ti+1(ui)=Ui. This is just directly how you say the Russell-style Ui:Ui+1 in a Tarski-style universe.

As for how El relates to Ti, El and T0 are the same thing where LF has only one universe, namely Type. So U0 correspond to Type, T0 corresponds to El, and type corresponds to kind. To be clear, this is treating LF and this logic with Tarski-style universes on the same footing. If we wanted to formalize this logic in LF, then the El of LF as the meta-language and the T0 of the object language would be different kinds of things.

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

1 comment thread

I think it would be easier for me to understand the second part of your answer if we consider a small... (4 comments)

Sign up to answer this question »