Is there a version of Hurken's paradox that applies to the universe of decidable subfinite propositions. That is, I want a variant of Coq.Loigic.Hurkens.NoRetractToNegativeProp.paradox
where NProp := { P : Prop | (P \/ ~P) /\ (exists n, forall (f : Fin.t n -> P), exists n1 n2, n1 <> n2 /\ f n1 = f n2) }
. (cc @Hugo Herbelin ?)
Jason Gross said:
Is there a version of Hurken's paradox that applies to the universe of decidable subfinite propositions. That is, I want a variant of
Coq.Loigic.Hurkens.NoRetractToNegativeProp.paradox
whereNProp := { P : Prop | (P \/ ~P) /\ (exists n, forall (f : Fin.t n -> P), exists n1 n2, n1 <> n2 /\ f n1 = f n2) }
. (cc Hugo Herbelin ?)
Naively, I would say no, with the intuition that Hurkens encapsulates a quantification over a big object in a small type. This big quantification has no reason to preserve subfiniteness a priori. You should ask a more expert than me.
I thought NProp
was the universe of big objects, though? (I'm suggesting that all big objects, including the universe of small objects, be subfinite and decidable.)
Actually, I think I'm interested in all big objects being strictly finite, i.e., equivalent to Fin.t n
for some n
.
If there is such a variant of Hurkens, then I think you can show that Univalence is inconsistent with impredicative Prop unless -indices-matter
is set (AFAIK, this was previously only folklore). Roughly the idea is that, if we assume funext, FiniteProp
has True
and False
and is closed under forall
. If we assume univalence, FiniteProp
also has bool = bool
. Then we should be able to get a retract between FiniteProp
and bool = bool
(where bool = bool -> FiniteProp -> bool = bool
is the identity and FiniteProp -> bool = bool -> FiniteProp
collapses each FiniteProp
to either True
or False
).
I've made a note of this at https://github.com/HoTT/HoTT/issues/842#issuecomment-1040903235
Last updated: Sep 30 2023 at 05:01 UTC