The main motivation is that we will be able to move equalities between universes.
For example, suppose we have
A : (Type i)
B : (Type i)
H : @eq (Type j) A B
where j > i
We didn't find any trick for deducing (@eq (Type i) A B) from H.
Before this commit, heterogeneous equality as a constant with type
heq : {A B : (Type U)} : A -> B -> Bool
So, from H, we would only be able to deduce
(@heq (Type j) (Type j) A B)
Not being able to move the equality back to a smaller universe is
problematic in several cases. I list some instances in the end of the commit message.
With this commit, Heterogeneous equality is a special kind of expression.
It is not a constant anymore. From H, we can deduce
H1 : A == B
That is, we are essentially "erasing" the universes when we move to heterogeneous equality.
Now, since A and B have (Type i), we can deduce (@eq (Type i) A B) from H1. The proof term is
(to_eq (Type i) A B (to_heq (Type j) A B H)) : (@eq (Type i) A B)
So, it remains to explain why we need this feature.
For example, suppose we want to state the Pi extensionality axiom.
axiom hpiext {A A' : (Type U)} {B : A → (Type U)} {B' : A' → (Type U)} :
A = A' → (∀ x x', x == x' → B x == B' x') → (∀ x, B x) == (∀ x, B' x)
This axiom produces an "inflated" equality at (Type U) when we treat heterogeneous
equality as a constant. The conclusion
(∀ x, B x) == (∀ x, B' x)
is syntax sugar for
(@heq (Type U) (Type U) (∀ x : A, B x) (∀ x : A', B' x))
Even if A, A', B, B' live in a much smaller universe.
As I described above, it doesn't seem to be a way to move this equality back to a smaller universe.
So, if we wanted to keep the heterogeneous equality as a constant, it seems we would
have to support axiom schemas. That is, hpiext would be parametrized by the universes where
A, A', B and B'. Another possibility would be to have universe polymorphism like Agda.
None of the solutions seem attractive.
So, we decided to have heterogeneous equality as a special kind of expression.
And use the trick above to move equalities back to the right universe.
BTW, the parser is not creating the new heterogeneous equalities yet.
Moreover, kernel.lean still contains a constant name heq2 that is the heterogeneous
equality as a constant.
Signed-off-by: Leonardo de Moura <leonardo@microsoft.com>
Before this commit, the elaborator was solving constraints of the form
ctx |- (?m x) == (f x)
as
?m <- (fun x : A, f x) where A is the domain of f.
In our kernel, the terms f and (fun x, f x) are not definitionally equal.
So, the solution above is not the only one. Another possible solution is
?m <- f
Depending of the circumstances we want ?m <- (fun x : A, f x) OR ?m <- f.
For example, when Lean is elaborating the eta-theorem in kernel.lean, the first solution should be used:
?m <- (fun x : A, f x)
When we are elaborating the axiom_of_choice theorem, we need to use the second one:
?m <- f
Of course, we can always provide the parameters explicitly and bypass the elaborator.
However, this goes against the idea that the elaborator can do mechanical steps for us.
This commit addresses this issue by creating a case-split
?m <- (fun x : A, f x)
OR
?m <- f
Another solution is to implement eta-expanded normal forms in the Kernel.
With this change, we were able to cleanup the following "hacks" in kernel.lean:
@eps_ax A (nonempty_ex_intro H) P w Hw
@axiom_of_choice A B P H
where we had to explicitly provided the implicit arguments
This commit also improves the imitation step for Pi-terms that are actually arrows.
Signed-off-by: Leonardo de Moura <leonardo@microsoft.com>
The idea is to support conditional equations where the left-hand-side does not contain all theorem arguments, but the missing arguments can be inferred using type inference.
For example, we will be able to have the eta theorem as rewrite rule:
theorem eta {A : TypeU} {B : A → TypeU} (f : ∀ x : A, B x) : (λ x : A, f x) = f
:= funext (λ x : A, refl (f x))
Signed-off-by: Leonardo de Moura <leonardo@microsoft.com>
