Abstract

Writing this in mid-December, I can promise only a classical tale of triumph or disaster which I hope to have made constructive by mid-February. I have recently begun to learn about the Cubical Type Theory of Coquand et al., as an effective computational basis for Voevodsky’s Univalent Foundations, inspired by a model of type theory in cubical sets. It is in some ways compelling in its simplicity, but in other ways intimidating in its complexity. In order to get to grips with it, I have begun to develop my own much less subtle variation on the theme. If I am lucky, I shall get away with it. If I am unlucky, I shall have learned more about why Cubical Type Theory has to be as subtle as it is.

My design separates Coquand’s all-powerful “compose” operator into smaller pieces, dedicated to more specific tasks, such as transitivity of paths. Each type path Q : S = T, induces a notion of value path s {Q} t, where either s : S, or s is •, “blob”, and similarly, t : T or t = •. A “blob” at one end indicates that the value at that end of the path is not mandated by the type. This liberalisation in the formation of “equality” types allows us to specify the key computational use of paths between types, extrusion:

if Q : S = T and s : S, then s ^⌢• Q : s {Q} •

That is, whenever we have a value s at one end of a type path Q : S = T, we can extrude that value across the type path, getting a value path which is s at the S end, but whose value at the T end is not specified in advance of explaining how to compute it. Extrusion gives us a notion of coercion-by-equality which is coherent by construction. It is defined by recursion on the structure of type paths. Univalence can be added to the system by allowing the formation of types interpolating two equivalent types, with extrusion demanding the existence of the corresponding interpolant values, computed on demand by means of the equivalence.

So far, there are disconcerting grounds for optimism, but the whole of the picture has not yet emerged: I may just have pushed the essential complexity into one corner, or the whole thing may be holed below the waterline. But if it does turn out to be nonsense, it will be nonsense for an interesting reason.