*To*: Rob Arthan <rda at lemma-one.com>, Ondřej Kunčar <kuncar at in.tum.de>*Subject*: Re: [isabelle] conservativity of HOL constant and type definitions*From*: Andrei Popescu <A.Popescu at mdx.ac.uk>*Date*: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 22:06:46 +0000*Accept-language*: en-GB, en-US*Authentication-results*: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=A.Popescu@mdx.ac.uk;*Cc*: "Prof. Andrew M. Pitts" <Andrew.Pitts at cl.cam.ac.uk>, "Prof. Thomas F. Melham" <thomas.melham at balliol.ox.ac.uk>, "cl-isabelle-users at lists.cam.ac.uk" <cl-isabelle-users at lists.cam.ac.uk>, Roger Bishop Jones <rbj at rbjones.com>, "Prof. Peter B. Andrews" <andrews at cmu.edu>, HOL-info list <hol-info at lists.sourceforge.net>*In-reply-to*: <119AB613-C64E-4D78-B31B-619D8862635D@lemma-one.com>*References*: <mailman.58165.1476751826.9767.hol-info@lists.sourceforge.net> <ac50a36e-5a5e-a356-6878-a5de00d02282@rbjones.com> <5E3CAC59-87D9-4C98-A58E-1B435A2F1E41@kenkubota.de> <B9CAE32E-026D-4ECB-B0BD-9D69ED2BAC69@lemma-one.com> <64cc1aed-c88f-4084-4ee0-e2981b6b2021@in.tum.de> <5B8D62CD-0391-47FA-AD1F-52F52A0B3F2C@lemma-one.com> <HE1PR01MB1321BAD7F561972B00688168B7D60@HE1PR01MB1321.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com> <B9568E67-6613-409D-8278-6E87BA2448AC@lemma-one.com> <AM3PR01MB1313BE012FC7B906B4F698C9B7A90@AM3PR01MB1313.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com> <AM3PR01MB13138EDE9FB883DD33BAB2FDB7A90@AM3PR01MB1313.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com> <E8B13090-D8D7-42DB-ACD0-72F074D0CA45@lemma-one.com> <d54914d2-dc95-92b9-769f-1c20c03a0526@in.tum.de>, <119AB613-C64E-4D78-B31B-619D8862635D@lemma-one.com>*Spamdiagnosticmetadata*: NSPM*Spamdiagnosticoutput*: 1:99*Thread-index*: AQHSLiLJtyO6LAY21kypBHYOCN/12qC3+e2AgAAEfgCAABIMAIAACxQu*Thread-topic*: conservativity of HOL constant and type definitions

The counterexample I had in mind is due to Makarius Wenzel (https://www4.in.tum.de/~wenzelm/papers/axclass-TPHOLs97.pdf, page 8): The theory T containing the single HOL formula "no type has cardinal 3" has a Henkin model M; yet, M has no expansion to the theory T extended with the definition of the type {1,2,3}. But actually this extension is not proof-theoretically conservative either (as it even breaks consistency) ... In fact, now I see that I have not clearly spelled out all the assumptions of the statements in my summary. So let me try again, also factoring in the base (i.e., to-be-extended) theory: (1) The constant definition mechanisms (including the more general ones) are known to be: (1.1) model-theoretic conservative w.r.t. standard (Pitts) models and arbitrary base theories (1.2) model-theoretic conservative w.r.t. Henkin models and arbitrary base theories (1.3) proof-theoretic conservative and arbitrary base theories (2) The type definition mechanism is known to be: (2.1) model-theoretic conservative w.r.t. standard models and arbitrary(?) base theories and known *not* to be: (2.2) model-theoretic conservative w.r.t. Henkin models and arbitrary base theories (2.3) proof-theoretic conservative w.r.t. Henkin models and arbitrary base theories On the other hand, it is of course legitimate to lower the expectation for typedefs, so we could ask what happens with (2.2) and (2.3) if we restrict to base theories that are themselves definitional. Here, the above counterexample does not work. And yes, Rob, without being able to follow your Heyting arithmetic analogy, I do see the similarity between a possible semantic proof of definitional-base-(2.2) and a possible syntactic proof of definitional-base-(2.3) (both revolving around the notion of relativization to sets). But I am surprised that a lot of attention has been given to the conservativity of constant definitions/specifications, but not to that of the old and venerable typedef. Best, Andrei ________________________________ From: Rob Arthan <rda at lemma-one.com> Sent: 24 October 2016 21:37 To: Ondřej Kunčar Cc: Andrei Popescu; Prof. Andrew M. Pitts; Prof. Thomas F. Melham; cl-isabelle-users at lists.cam.ac.uk; Roger Bishop Jones; Prof. Peter B. Andrews; HOL-info list Subject: Re: conservativity of HOL constant and type definitions Ondrej, > On 24 Oct 2016, at 20:32, Ondřej Kunčar <kuncar at in.tum.de> wrote: > > On 10/24/2016 09:16 PM, Rob Arthan wrote: >> I am pretty sure nothing has been published and, if you are right about (2.2), >> then I don't think type definitions can be proof-theoretically conservative. I made that sound too strong: I was just making a conjecture: for "think" read "feel". > They could. You can try to argue by "unfolding" the type definitions. "Unfolding" of types is exactly what I had in mind when I mentioned the methods used in connect with Heyting arithmetic. > Again, the model-theoretic conservativity is stronger than the proof-theoretic in general. And here you don't have an existential quantifier for type constructors so you [can't] use the approach as you did for constants. Yes, but if the unfolding approach works, you would have reduced the essential properties of the type definition to a statement about the existence of a certain subset of the representation type bearing a relationship with some siubsets of the parameter types and you would then be able to deduce model-theoretic conservativeness. That's why I felt, that if Andrei is right that the type definition principle is not model-theoretically conservative w.r.t. Henkin models (his point (2.2)), then it won't be proof-theoretically conservative either, because the unfolding argument must break down somewhere. It would be very useful to see an example of a type definition that is not conservative w.r.t. Henkin models. Regards, Rob.

**References**:**[isabelle] definability of new types (HOL), overloaded constant definitions for axiomatic type classes (Isabelle) - Re: Who is ProofPower "by" (and STT)?***From:*Ken Kubota

**Re: [isabelle] definability of new types (HOL), overloaded constant definitions for axiomatic type classes (Isabelle) - Re: Who is ProofPower "by" (and STT)?***From:*Rob Arthan

**Re: [isabelle] definability of new types (HOL), overloaded constant definitions for axiomatic type classes (Isabelle) - Re: Who is ProofPower "by" (and STT)?***From:*OndÅej KunÄar

**Re: [isabelle] [Hol-info] definability of new types (HOL), overloaded constant definitions for axiomatic type classes (Isabelle) - Re: Who is ProofPower "by" (and STT)?***From:*Rob Arthan

**Re: [isabelle] [Hol-info] definability of new types (HOL), overloaded constant definitions for axiomatic type classes (Isabelle) - Re: Who is ProofPower "by" (and STT)?***From:*Andrei Popescu

**Re: [isabelle] [Hol-info] definability of new types (HOL), overloaded constant definitions for axiomatic type classes (Isabelle) - Re: Who is ProofPower "by" (and STT)?***From:*Rob Arthan

*From:*Andrei Popescu

**[isabelle] conservativity of HOL constant and type definitions***From:*Andrei Popescu

**Re: [isabelle] conservativity of HOL constant and type definitions***From:*Rob Arthan

**Re: [isabelle] conservativity of HOL constant and type definitions***From:*OndÅej KunÄar

**Re: [isabelle] conservativity of HOL constant and type definitions***From:*Rob Arthan

- Previous by Date: Re: [isabelle] conservativity of HOL constant and type definitions
- Next by Date: [isabelle] The definitional principles of HOL and equivalent mechanisms in Q0/R0
- Previous by Thread: Re: [isabelle] conservativity of HOL constant and type definitions
- Next by Thread: Re: [isabelle] [Hol-info] conservativity of HOL constant and type definitions
- Cl-isabelle-users October 2016 archives indexes sorted by: [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ date ]
- Cl-isabelle-users list archive Table of Contents
- More information about the Cl-isabelle-users mailing list