|logic||category theory||type theory|
|true||terminal object/(-2)-truncated object||h-level 0-type/unit type|
|false||initial object||empty type|
|proposition||(-1)-truncated object||h-proposition, mere proposition|
|cut rule||composition of classifying morphisms / pullback of display maps||substitution|
|cut elimination for implication||counit for hom-tensor adjunction||beta reduction|
|introduction rule for implication||unit for hom-tensor adjunction||eta conversion|
|disjunction||coproduct ((-1)-truncation of)||sum type (bracket type of)|
|implication||internal hom||function type|
|negation||internal hom into initial object||function type into empty type|
|universal quantification||dependent product||dependent product type|
|existential quantification||dependent sum ((-1)-truncation of)||dependent sum type (bracket type of)|
|equivalence||path space object||identity type|
|equivalence class||quotient||quotient type|
|induction||colimit||inductive type, W-type, M-type|
|higher induction||higher colimit||higher inductive type|
|completely presented set||discrete object/0-truncated object||h-level 2-type/preset/h-set|
|set||internal 0-groupoid||Bishop set/setoid|
|universe||object classifier||type of types|
|modality||closure operator, (idemponent) monad||modal type theory, monad (in computer science)|
|linear logic||(symmetric, closed) monoidal category||linear type theory/quantum computation|
|proof net||string diagram||quantum circuit|
|(absence of) contraction rule||(absence of) diagonal||no-cloning theorem|
|synthetic mathematics||domain specific embedded programming language|
Extensional type theory denotes the flavor of type theory in which identity types are demanded to be propositions / of h-level 1. In other words, they are determined by their extensions — the collection of pairs of points which are equal. Type theory which is not extensional is called intensional type theory.
The word “extensional” in type theory (even when applied to identity types) sometimes refers instead to the axiom of function extensionality. In general this property is orthogonal to the one considered here: function extensionality can hold or fail in both extensional and intensional type theory. In particular, homotopy type theory is intensional in that identity types are crucially not demanded to be propositions, but function extensionality is often assumed (in terms of these intensional identity types, of course) — in particular, it follows from the univalence axiom.
At first, this may appear to be only a “skeletality” assumption, since it does not assert explicitly that is reflexivity rather than a nontrivial loop. However, we can derive this with the induction rule for identity types. Consider the dependent type
This is well-typed because the reflection rule applied to yields a definitional equality , so that we have . Moreover, substituting for and for yields the type , which is inhabited by .
Thus, by induction on identity, we have a term in the above type, witnessing a propositional equality between and . Finally, applying the equality reflection rule again, we get a definitional equality .
On the other hand, if in addition to the equality reflection rule we postulate that all equality proofs are definitionally equal to reflexivity, then we can derive the induction rule for identity types. Definitionally extensional type theory is often presented in this form.
In a propositionally extensional type theory, we still distinguish definitional and propositional equality, but no two terms can be propositionally equal in more than one way (up to propositional equality). In the language of homotopy type theory, this means that all types are h-sets. There are a number of equivalent ways to force this to be true by adding axioms? to type theory.
We can add as an axiom the “uniqueness of identity proofs” (axiom UIP) property that any two inhabitants of the same identity type are themselves equal (in the corresponding higher identity type).
We can add Streicher’s axiom K which says that any inhabitant of a self-equality type is (propositionally) equal to the identity/reflexivity equality . (Axiom K is so named because comes after , and usually denotes the eliminator for identity types.)
In the presence of dependent sum types, we can add an axiom saying that if and are pairs in a dependent sum with the same first component, and the identity type is inhabited, then so is .
We can allow definition of functions by a strong form of pattern matching, as in unmodified Agda. The relevant “extra strength” is to allow output types of a pattern match which are only well-defined after the pattern has been matched.
Propositionally extensional type theory has some of the attributes of intensional type theory, and many type theorists use “extensional type theory” to refer only to the definitional version.
Among the most thorough recent treatments of extensional type theory are
Ieke Moerdijk, E. Palmgren, Wellfounded trees in categories. Ann. Pure Appl. Logic, 104:189-218 (2000)
Ieke Moerdijk, E. Palmgren, Type theories, toposes and constructive set theory: predicative aspects of AST, Ann. Pure Appl. Logic, 114:155-201, (2002)