Abstract
What is here being called the present version of constructive type theory is a synthesis and elaboration of the versions (7) and (8) of constructive type theory. This chapter sets out with preliminaries which are philosophical methodological guidelines underlying the organization and presentation of the present version of constructive type theory. The following two sections discuss the non-dependent types and objects as well as the dependent types and objects resp. The third section moreover explains, how to construct new types and objects from given ones, where the former will be called function types and the latter function objects. These sections define a whole type structure, but nothing has been said so far about what types there are. The sixth and seventh sections introduce two ground types, namely the ground type of sets and the ground type of propositions resp. And the ‘application’ of the just mentioned type structure to the ground type of sets yields in the ninth section constructive set theory, while the ‘application’ of the same type structure to the ground type of propositions yields in the tenth section constructive logic. The eleventh section reveals that the theories of these two ground types, i.e. constructive set theory and constructive logic, not only share the same (type-) structural features, but they also have other essential features in common which allow to establish a precise correspondence (often called isomorphism) between sets and propositions. The twelfth and last section introduces the sequents and shows that there is a precise correspondence (that can also be called isomorphism) between types and sequents.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Dubislav (1931), pp. 2–7.
Curry (1977), Chapter 3, Sect. C, or Curry and Feys (1958), Chapt. 2, Sect. E.
To see how Curry inspired the conception of def. identity in constructive type theory, cf. Sect. viii. of this chapter.
Solomon (1970). pp. 398–401.
Scholz (1930), pp. 38–40.
In his (1983A), p. 235, he advocates this order (for the first time) for all the concepts or notions to be really defined in that paper. In his (1990), p. 141, he appears to generalize this statement to include all concepts whatsoever.
Cf. Dummett (1981).
S Patzig (1973), pp. 61,62.
p. 76; in the same direction cf. Frede (1987). lhe bulk ot rredes and Patzig’s papers is critical in the sense of a discussion and critique of earlier interpretations of Artistotle’s categories, and the positive attempt at an interpretation of their own is tentative and fragmentary.
0 Cf. Körner (1955), Chapter 3.
Cf. Bar-Hillel (1957) and Thompson (1967).
Quine (1969), p. 18.
p. 3.
p. 9.
p. 18.
p. 18.
17p. 19.
l8 p. 23.
Gottlieb (1979), p. 81.
20p84
p92
Geach (1967, 1973).
Griffin (1977), p. 9.
pp. 10–12.
pp. 13–17.
26p.21.
Cf. also Stegmüller (1978).
Cf. Def. 5.1 in Thompson (1991), p. 131.
Apart from Leibniz, the following quotes are taken from Rüthing (1984).
Pfeiffer and Dahan-Dalmedico (1986), pp. 217–218, and also Chapt. 6, §§7–15.
Rüthing (1984), p. 75.
Cf. also Martin-Löf (1986).
Cf. Hatcher (1982), Chapter 4, Sect. 5.
Cf. de Bruijn (1970, 1980).
Curry and Feys (1958), cf. Introduction.
This whole section is based on Tasistro (1993).
Tasistro (1993), p. 18.
For the details, cf. pp. 17–18.
p. 18.
p. 19.
19.
Cf. pp. 14–16. For the details of these justifications, cf. pp. 20, 21.
p. 22.
p. 22
p. 23.
46pp. 25, 26.
pp. 25, 26.
p. 23.
For details, cf. p. 24.
p. 26/7.
p. 26.
P. 27.
53p 27
Bochenski (1970), §40.
The following quotes are taken from Hallett (1984), pp. 33, 34, 45.
Parsons (1967), p. 195.
Cf. van Dalen et al. (1978), Chapter 2, Sect. 4. For an informal account, cf. Boolos (1971).
Van Dalen et al. (1978), Chapter 1, Sect. 20.
Aczel (1978), p. 61.
pp. 61, 62.
Cf. Hatcher (1982), Chapter 4, Sect. 2.
Hatcher (1982), p. 109.
Cf. also Jacobs (1989), pp. 402, 403.
p. 404.
This note (1) makes use of Sundholm (1993).
Cf. e.g. Quine (1969).
Berg (1962), p. 51.
Cf. Martin-Löf’s examples in version (7), pp. 25, 26.
Dummett (1975).
For these notes, cf. Thompson (1991), pp. 68, 74.
Cf. Nordström et al. (1990), pp. 103, 104.
For details, cf. version (6), pp. 74ff.
Cf. Nordström et al. (1990), pp. 72,73.
For an example, cf. Nordström et al. (1990), p. 51.
Cf. Nordström et al. (1990), p. 63.
p.66.
p. 67.
pp. 93–95.
Cf. p. 93.
p. 93.
Aczel (1978), p. 61.
Cf. Nordström et al. (1990), pp. 100, 101.
Cf. Jacobs (1989).
Cf. Schroeder-Heister (1984, 1984A).
Cf. for these distinctions Troelstra and van Dalen (1988), pp. 189, 190.
Bishop (1967), p. 9.
Swaen (1989), esp. pp. 10–12.
Frege (1893), p. 61.
Cf. Nordström et al. (1990), pp. 84, 66.
Swaen (1989), pp. 65, 99.
For an example cf. version (7), p. 94.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2000 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Sommaruga, G. (2000). The Present Version of Constructive Type Theory (1995). In: History and Philosophy of Constructive Type Theory. Synthese Library, vol 290. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9393-9_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9393-9_1
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-5403-6
Online ISBN: 978-94-015-9393-9
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive