equality notes

src/content/posts/2023-09-15-equality.md

@@ -0,0 +1,117 @@
+---
+title: Equality
+date: 2023-09-15T05:36:53.757Z
+tags:
+  - type-theory
+draft: true
+---
+
+When learning type theory, it's important to make a distinction between several
+kinds of "same"-ness. Whenever you talk about two things being equal, you'd want
+to qualify it with one of these in order to make it clear which you're referring
+to, since they're very different concepts.
+
+- **Definitional**, or **judgmental** equality. This is usually written with
+  $\equiv$ in math. If you see $x \equiv y$, this says "I've defined $x$ and $y$
+  to be the same, so anytime you see $x$, you can replace it with $y$ and vice
+  versa."
+
+  > [!NOTE]
+  > Technically speaking, definitional and judgmental are two separate concepts
+  > but coincide in many type theories. You could think of multiple levels of
+  > equalities like this:
+  >
+  > - Does $2$ equal $2$? Yes. This is the same object, and equality is reflexive.
+  > - Does $s(s(z))$ equal $2$? Well, typically this is how natural numbers are
+  >   defined in type systems: $2 \equiv s(s(z))$. _By definition_ they are
+  >   identical.
+  > - Does $1 + 1$ equal $2$? The operation $+$ is a function, and requires a
+  >   β-reduction to evaluate any further. This choice really comes down to the
+  >   choice of the type theory designer; if you wanted a more intensional type
+  >   theory, you could choose to not allow β-reduction during evaluation of
+  >   identities. Most type theories _do_ allow this though.
+
+- **Propositional** equality. This describes a _value_ that potentially holds
+  true or false. This is typically written $=$ in math.
+
+## Helpful tips
+
+- You can talk about propositional equalities conditionally, like "if $a$ equals
+  $b$, then $c$ is true". This kind of expression doesn't really make sense for
+  judgmental equality, like in the following example:
+
+  Suppose you made the judgment: $x = 2$. It makes no sense to then say "if $x$
+  equals $2$, then $c$ is true." You can just skip right to $c$ is true, because
+  you've defined it to be true, so it's useless even thinking about
+  the case where it's false because that would be a part of a completely
+  different world entirely.
+
+- Here's a concrete example of the difference between judgmental and
+  propositional equality. Consider these 2 expressions:
+
+  - $2 + 3 = 3 + 2$
+  - $\forall x\ y \in \mathbb{N} . (x + y = y + x)$
+
+  In the first case, performing β-reduction on both terms reduces to $5 =
+  5$, which is definitionally equal by virtue of being the exact same symbol.
+
+  In the second case however, β-reduction is impossible. Without a specific
+  $x$ or $y$, there's actually no way to reduce either side more. You would need
+  some other constructs to prove it, such as induction.
+
+- Suppose you were expressing these concepts in a language like TypeScript. The
+  analog of a judgment would be something like:
+
+  ```ts
+  type Foo = string;
+  ```
+
+  Any time you're using `Foo`, you really don't have to compare it with
+  `string`, because just through a simple substitution you will get the same
+  symbol:
+
+  ```
+  function sayHello(who: string) { console.log(`Hello, ${who}`); }
+  function run(foo: Foo) { sayHello(foo); }
+  ```
+
+  On the other hand, a propositional equality type might look something like
+  this instead:
+
+  ```ts
+  class Equal<A, B> {
+    private constructor() {}
+    static refl<A>(): Equal<A, A> {}
+  }
+  ```
+
+  You could have a value of this type, and query on its truthiness:
+
+  ```ts
+  type TwoEqualsTwo = Equal<Two, 2>;
+
+  function trans<A, B, C>(x: Equal<A, B>, y: Equal<B, C>): Equal<A, C> {
+    // magic...
+  }
+  ```
+
+## Notation gotcha
+
+The syntax we use in most math papers and other literature and the syntax we use
+for equalities in various dependently-typed programming languages are annoyingly
+different:
+
+|               | Math         | Agda    | Coq      | Idris   |
+| ------------- | ------------ | ------- | -------- | ------- |
+| Judgmental    | $x \equiv y$ | `x = y` | `x := y` | `x = y` |
+| Propositional | $x = y$      | `x ≡ y` | `x = y`  | `x = y` |
+
+Usually there'll be some other pre-fix way of writing the propositional equals
+in your language too. In Agda, it's `Path {A} x y`.
+
+## More reading
+
+- https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/definitional+equality
+- https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/judgment
+- https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/judgmental+equality
+- https://hott.github.io/book/hott-ebook.pdf.html

src/styles/_colors.scss

@@ -18,6 +18,10 @@
     --code-color: firebrick;
     --tag-color: #{lighten($linkColor, 35%)};
 
+    // Admonition
+    --note-color: #{$linkColor};
+    --note-background-color: var(--link-hover-color);
+
     // Syntax Highlighting
     --astro-code-color-text: #24292e;
     --astro-code-color-background: inherit;
@@ -53,6 +57,10 @@
     --code-color: #{lighten(firebrick, 25%)};
     --tag-color: #{darken($linkColor, 55%)};
 
+    // Admonition
+    --note-color: #{$linkColor};
+    --note-background-color: var(--link-hover-color);
+
     // Syntax Highlighting
     --astro-code-color-text: #e1e4e8;
     --astro-code-color-background: inherit;

src/styles/post.scss

@@ -39,6 +39,11 @@
     display: none;
   }
 
+  p,
+  ul {
+    margin-block: 12px;
+  }
+
   p > img {
     max-width: 100%;
     height: auto;
@@ -250,17 +255,27 @@ hr.endline {
 
 .admonition {
   // TODO: Figure out how to distinguish admonitions
-  --color: var(--link-color);
+  --admonition-color: var(--note-color);
 
-  border-left: 4px solid var(--color);
+  background-color: var(--note-background-color);
-  padding-left: 8px;
+  border-left: 4px solid var(--admonition-color);
+  padding: 8px;
   font-size: 0.9rem;
+  border-radius: 8px;
 
   .admonition-title {
-    color: var(--color);
+    color: var(--admonition-color);
   }
 
   p {
     margin: 8px auto;
   }
+
+  :first-child {
+    margin-top: 0;
+  }
+
+  :last-child {
+    margin-bottom: 0;
+  }
 }