Not signed in (Sign In)

Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

  • Sign in using OpenID

Site Tag Cloud

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry book bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration foundation foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory internal-categories k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pages pasting philosophy physics pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory stack string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft type type-theory universal variational-calculus

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to nForum
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).

nLab > Latest Changes: type telescope

Bottom of Page

1 to 11 of 11

  1.  

  1. Page created, but author did not leave any comments.

    Anonymous

    v1, current

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 7th 2022

    I have added the following disambiguation warning:

    This entry is about a notion in formal logic (type theory). For the notion in homotopy theory see at mapping telescope.

    But if you can think of any adjective that could go in front of your “telescope” here, I’d suggest that you add that to the entry’s name here

    diff, v2, current

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeMay 7th 2022

    “type telescope”?

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 21st 2022

    changed page name from “telescope” to “type telescope”

    diff, v5, current

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeMay 21st 2022

    Another possibility that occurs to me is “dependent context”. I kind of wish type telescopes were called that more often; it’s more descriptive of what they actually are.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeMay 21st 2022

    Or even just “telescope (type theory)”.

  7. Added sentence distinguishing telescopes from contexts

    Anonymous

    diff, v7, current

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJan 26th 2023
    • (edited Jan 26th 2023)

    I find the entry in its present state less than illuminating. For instance it is hard to discern (for me, anyways) what the first two sentences are even trying to say:

    In formal logic such as type theory a telescope Δ\Delta is a finite list of terms in context, whose elements/terms/inhabitants are substitutions. One distinguishes telescopes from contexts by the fact that telescopes have elements while contexts do not have elements.

    (Why would contexts not “have elements”?!)

    Also the current referencing is puzzling: The first one (Winterhalter 2020) mentions the term “telescope” only a couple of times and in passing, clearly assuming that the term needs no further introdction and clearly implying that

    • a telescope is just an iterated dependent pair type (a dependent pairing with a dependent pairing with…)

    This does indeed seem to be how the term is used in practice, e.g. in

    • Claudio Sacerdoti Coen, Enrico Tassi, Working with Mathematical Structures in Type Theory, in: Types for Proofs and Programs. TYPES 2007, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 4941 Springer (2008) [doi:10.1007/978-3-540-68103-8_11, pdf]

    and in most of the other references listed here.

    Indeed, the second reference (Shulman) introduces (slide 5) inference rules for telescopes that look much like those for dependent pairs (just saying “substitution” for “dependent pair”).

    One is left with the impression of being presented a concept meant to be novel as of ∼\sim2020, but aren’t we talking about the concept that goes back to

    ?

    There a telescope is defined to be a sequence of iterated dependent types

    (a 1:A 1),(a 2:A 2(a 1)),(a 3:A 3(a 1,a 2)),⋯,(a n:A n(a 1,⋯a n−1)) (a_1 \colon A_1) ,\, \big( a_2 \colon A_2(a_1) \big) ,\, \big( a_3 \colon A_3(a_1, a_2) \big) ,\, \cdots ,\, \big( a_n \colon A_n(a_1, \cdots a_{n-1}) \big)

    I suppose we can read this either as an iterated sequence of contexts, or as the corresponding dependent pair type

    (a 1:A 1)×(a 2:A 2(a 1))×(a 3:A 3(a 1,a 2))×⋯×(a n:A n(a 1,⋯a n−1)) (a_1 \colon A_1) \times \big( a_2 \colon A_2(a_1) \big) \times \big( a_3 \colon A_3(a_1, a_2) \big) \times \cdots \times \big( a_n \colon A_n(a_1, \cdots a_{n-1}) \big)

    (in the notation of dependent functions and dependent pairs – table) and I gather we want to say “telescope” to bring out the fine distinction between the former and the latter?

    If that is the case, I’d suggest to rework the entry to make this clearer. An informative lead-in sentence could go as follows:

    In dependent type theory, by a telescope (of dependent types) one means [de Bruijn (1991, §3.1)] an iterated dependent type (i.e. a tower of types, each depending on the previous types) (a 1:A 1)(a 2:A 2(a 1))(a 3:A 3(a 1,a 2))⋯(a n:A n(a 1,⋯a n−1))(a_1 \colon A_1) \big( a_2 \colon A_2(a_1) \big) \big( a_3 \colon A_3(a_1, a_2) \big) \cdots \big( a_n \colon A_n(a_1, \cdots a_{n-1}) \big), and maybe specifically when thought of as a type context. Corresponding to this is the iterated dependent pair type (a 1:A 1)×(a 2:A 2(a 1))×(a 3:A 3(a 1,a 2))×⋯×(a n:A n(a 1,⋯a n−1)) (a_1 \colon A_1) \times \big( a_2 \colon A_2(a_1) \big) \times \big( a_3 \colon A_3(a_1, a_2) \big) \times \cdots \times \big( a_n \colon A_n(a_1, \cdots a_{n-1}) \big) (aggregating the list of types into a single type, as usual), and many authors use “telescope” simply as shorthand for such iterated dependent pair types (e.g. [Coen & Tassi (2008), Winterhalter (2020)]). Type telescopes regarded explicitly as distinct from their iterated dependent pair types (but with much the same inference rules, after all), are also considered in [Shulman (2022)].

    Something like this.

    diff, v9, current

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJan 26th 2023
    • (edited Jan 26th 2023)

    In fact, reading more closely in

    it becomes clear that by “telescope” he does mean iterated dependent pair types.

    Moreover, it seems de Bruijn proposed this terminology and notion already in the early 1970s, because it is already attributed to him in 1975 in:

    • Jeffery Zucker, Formalization of Classical Mathematics in Automath, Colloques Internationaux du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique 249 (1975) 135-145 [web, pdf]

      also in: Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics 133 (1994) 127-139 [doi:10.1016/S0049-237X(08)70202-7]

    It all comes from the desire to formalize mathematical structures in dependent type theory as type telescopes:

    From Zucker (1975, §10.2):

    Now a general framework in which to view linear orders, or other algebraic structures, has been proposed by de Bruijn. It uses the notion of “telescope”

    […]

    A telescope therefore functions like a “generalized ∑\sum”.

    So unless there is some major objection, I am going to completely rework and expand our entry on telescopes to reflect this.

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJan 31st 2023

    have edited the entry accordingy

    diff, v10, current

  11. Adding reference

    Anonymouse

    diff, v12, current

1 to 11 of 11

  1.