Post History

András Kovács answer and comments to your [question on Math.SE](https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/4666444/why-use-lf-to-define-type-theories) hit some of the main points. I'll give a bit more detail and context.

First, the point of logical frameworks like LF is to be a *formal* meta-language, and, in particular, a formal *specification* language. The definitions in the HoTT book characterize the rules of the object language, i.e. Homotopy Type Theory, in an *informal* meta-language. Despite its formalistic look, the notation is rarely clearly and exhaustively defined, and you can't stick it into an interpreter somewhere. Guy Steele suggested changing this state of affairs in [It's Time for a New Old Language](https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3018743.3018773) ([PDF](http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/gjs/6.945/readings/Steele-MIT-April-2017.pdf)). Working in an informal meta-language is completely okay and is the typical situation, but often we do want to prove meta-theoretic results which would involve formalizing such concepts anyway. The two excerpts from Lungu's thesis illustrate this. In one, she provides the *formal* LF specification of pi types of the object language. In the other, she lists the *informal* rules that specification *corresponds to* for illustrative and explanatory purposes.

Now, the goal of a *specification* language is to clearly and unambiguously *describe* some class of mathematical objects. What *isn't* a goal of a specification language is to prove things about that class of mathematical objects or be able to construct examples. Instead, we'll usually provide meta-theorems (about the specification language) that allow us to interpret or translate the specifications into more powerful mathematical arenas, e.g. set theory, category theory, or type theory. Alternatively, we could analyze the meta-theory of the specification language directly to prove things about the described objects.

As a stepping stone, let's consider an algebraic specification language. A quick description of it is the fragment of (multi-sorted) first-order logic consisting of the formulas that are (unconditional) equations. Spelling that out, a specification in this algebraic specification language must provide 1) a collection of sorts, these are essentially uninterpreted symbols, 2) a collection of operators with specified arities, i.e. a name of the operator, a list of sorts for the input arity and a sort for the output arity, 3) a collection of equations, i.e. pairs of open terms that should be treated as equal. For example, the algebraic specification of a monoid consists of a single sort, $\mathsf M$, two operators $\mathsf{mul}: (\mathsf M, \mathsf M) \to \mathsf M$ and $\mathsf{unit}: () \to \mathsf M$, and three equations, $$\mathsf{mul}(\mathsf{unit}(), x) = x = \mathsf{mul}(x, \mathsf{unit}())\quad\text{and}\quad \mathsf{mul}(\mathsf{mul}(x, y), z) = \mathsf{mul}(x, \mathsf{mul}(y, z))$$ There's very little of interest that we can prove within this algebraic theory about monoids. This is because the algebraic specification is *intentionally* extremely weak.

The benefit of this weakness is that its meta-theory is much simpler, and it can be interpreted/translated into a much broader set of semantics/logics. For example, I described it earlier as a fragment of first-order logic, but whether that was a classical, intuitionistic, or para-consistent first-order logic is not something that matters to an algebraic specification as it doesn't include logical negation among its connectives - in fact it has *no* connectives. More powerfully, we know *a priori* that we can consider models of *any* algebraic specification in *any* category with finite products. If you're not familiar with category theory, suffice it to say that a category having finite products is a very weak condition and this thus massively expands what we can interpret this theory beyond traditional set-theoretic semantics. It's also the case that a lot more structure is required to interpret first-order logic into a category, so viewing algebraic specifications as particularly simple first-order theories is very constraining and unnecessarily so.

Let's finally turn to Luo's LF. (I say "Luo's LF" because Edinburgh LF is a very similar system aimed at similar problems but used in a very different way.) Relative to algebraic specifications, there are two (arguably three counting the universe) main additions in LF: type dependency and terms with binders. These are separable. We can easily have terms with binders in a non-dependently typed context. Alternatively, we could consider operators whose arities had typed dependencies, e.g. $\mathsf{id} : (x: \mathsf{Ob}) \to \mathsf{Hom}(x, x)$, but still have our term syntax lack binders^[First-Order Logic of Dependent Sorts (FOLDS) and Dependent FOL (DFOL) are examples of such systems which additionally add the rest of first-order logic.]. I'll focus on the terms with binders aspect.

By terms with binders, I mean terms that can bind variables in their subterms. For a high school math example, in $\lim_{n\to\infty}f(n)$ the $\lim_{n\to\infty}$ binds the variable $n$ in the sub-expression $f(n)$. While it is possible to directly formalize the notion of a binding term, it is often conceptually simpler (though more demanding^[See Luo's [PAL+: a lambda-free logical framework](https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1017/S0956796802004525) for one of his approaches to decreasing these demands.]) to add a notion of function type, potentially dependent, and treat these operators as operating on functions, e.g. $\mathsf{lim}_\infty : (\mathbb N \to \mathbb R) \to \mathbb R$. We then have lambda notation to introduce functions. Our above example becomes $\mathsf{lim}_\infty(\lambda n:\mathbb N. f(n))$. This is closely related to the notion of higher-order abstract syntax. Another benefit of introducing function types is that they allow us to simplify all operators to nullary operators, i.e. constants, of function type. One downside of reducing binding terms to operators that take functions is that not all such binding terms make sense as taking functions. They may have special rules around the bound variables, e.g. linearity, that would not be enforced by an arbitrary function / lambda syntax. That said, such special cases are fairly rare.

The result is that LF allows us to specify the *rules* of the object theory and any *definitional* equalities of the syntax. Just to be extra clear, the syntax doesn't need to be the syntax of a type theory. We could, for example, redo the monoid example in LF. We could also expand on the high school calculus notation and potentially axiomatize that. However, these lambdas in LF only help us with the substitutional behavior of the syntax^[Which is a big help.]. Even if we declare a type $\mathsf{Lam}: (\mathsf{Type}, \mathsf{Type}) \to \mathsf{Type}$, and operators $\mathsf{abs} : (A \to B) \to \mathsf{Lam}(A, B)$ and $\mathsf{app} : (\mathsf{Lam}(A, B), A) \to B$, we in no way have the equality $\mathsf{app}(\mathsf{abs}(\lambda x:A.f(x)), c) = f(c)$ nor would we want this in all cases. This would have to be separately asserted as an axiom^[As happens, indirectly, in the PAL+ paper.]. The benefit, though, is that the axiom can be stated in this form. Without binding terms, we would need to explicitly manage the notion of substitution. This would either lead to an unwanted and probably inaccurate explicit notion of substitution, or you're forced to work in the semantics or purely syntactically. It's also very tedious and error-prone to formulate results for substitution. With LF, this work can be done once for LF and then every specification in LF benefits from it.

There will be rules in the book that specify the behavior of LF itself. LF being an instance of a type theory, these will look similar to such rules elsewhere. As an example of a particular specification *within* LF, there will be constants and equations that specify the syntax and computation rules of an example type theory. In general, this will be a richer type theory, e.g. it will have sigma types. Since LF isn't trying to prove significant theorems about the object language, it doesn't matter if the language described is much richer/more powerful than LF itself.

We definitely do NOT automatically inherit pi types from LF in our object language. That would be disastrous as we want to be able to describe object languages that don't have such types. As mentioned before, we could, if we wanted to, describe the (algebraic) theory of monoids in LF. That theory clearly has no pi types. If we want the object language to have pi types, we will need to explicitly provide appropriate constants and equations. We don't inherit any inference rules except perhaps ones involving substitution. The inference rules for LF's pi types, don't know anything about any constants, like $\mathsf{abs}$ and $\mathsf{app}$ above, you may have introduced to encode pi types in your object language. The "inference rule" for pi types in the object language is encoded by having inhabitants of appropriate types that correspond to those inference rules and equations ensuring they behave appropriately. Note that the "dependent product kind" rules shown in Lungu's, as the name suggests, does not give us dependent product *types*. We cannot derive $(x:K)K' : \mathsf{Type}$.

Finally, LF doesn't itself include sigma types because it has no need for its purposes, and we want specification languages to be as simple as possible for generality. With LF, we trade a bit of simplicity for more convenience and a nicer meta-theory.