Math 2.0

Mathematical logic and foundations Definition

Calculus of constructions

Builds on Dependent typeBeta reductionLambda cube

Definition

The calculus of constructions is the pure type system with two sorts ∗* (also written 𝖯𝗋𝗈𝗉\mathsf{Prop}) and □\square (also written 𝖳𝗒𝗉𝖾\mathsf{Type}), given as follows. The terms are t::=x∣∗∣□∣t t∣λx:t. t∣Πx:t. tt ::= x \mid * \mid \square \mid t\, t \mid \lambda x{:}t.\, t \mid \Pi x{:}t.\, t. The typing relation Γ⊢t:T\Gamma \vdash t : T is the least relation closed under these rules, where s,s1,s2s, s_1, s_2 range over {∗,□}\set{*, \square}.

  1. Axiom: ⊢∗:□\vdash * : \square.
  2. Start and weakening: if Γ⊢A:s\Gamma \vdash A : s and xx is a fresh variable, then Γ,x:A⊢x:A\Gamma, x : A \vdash x : A, and every judgment of Γ\Gamma also holds in Γ,x:A\Gamma, x : A.
  3. Product: if Γ⊢A:s1\Gamma \vdash A : s_1 and Γ,x:A⊢B:s2\Gamma, x : A \vdash B : s_2, then Γ⊢Πx:A. B:s2\Gamma \vdash \Pi x{:}A.\, B : s_2, for each of the four pairs (s1,s2)(s_1, s_2).
  4. Abstraction: if Γ,x:A⊢b:B\Gamma, x : A \vdash b : B and Γ⊢Πx:A. B:s\Gamma \vdash \Pi x{:}A.\, B : s, then Γ⊢λx:A. b:Πx:A. B\Gamma \vdash \lambda x{:}A.\, b : \Pi x{:}A.\, B.
  5. Application: if Γ⊢f:Πx:A. B\Gamma \vdash f : \Pi x{:}A.\, B and Γ⊢a:A\Gamma \vdash a : A, then Γ⊢f a:B[a/x]\Gamma \vdash f\, a : B[a/x].
  6. Conversion: if Γ⊢t:A\Gamma \vdash t : A, Γ⊢B:s\Gamma \vdash B : s and AA and BB are equal up to beta reduction, then Γ⊢t:B\Gamma \vdash t : B.

Remarks

Example: ⊢λP:∗. λx:P. x:ΠP:∗. Πx:P. P\vdash \lambda P{:}*.\, \lambda x{:}P.\, x : \Pi P{:}*.\, \Pi x{:}P.\, P. The check: P:∗⊢P:∗P : * \vdash P : * by rule 2, so rule 3 with (∗,∗)(*, *) gives P:∗⊢Πx:P. P:∗P : * \vdash \Pi x{:}P.\, P : *, and rule 3 with (□,∗)(\square, *) gives ⊢ΠP:∗. Πx:P. P:∗\vdash \Pi P{:}*.\, \Pi x{:}P.\, P : *. Rule 4 applied twice gives the term its type. Since Πx:P. P\Pi x{:}P.\, P does not depend on xx, it is written P→PP \to P, and the type reads "every proposition implies itself".

Non-example: □\square has no type, since no rule gives Γ⊢□:T\Gamma \vdash \square : T. So one cannot form ΠX:□. X\Pi X{:}\square.\, X, and there is no type of all types; this blocks Girard's paradox.

The four product rules (∗,∗)(*, *), (□,∗)(\square, *), (∗,□)(*, \square) and (□,□)(\square, \square) give terms depending on terms, terms on types, types on terms and types on types. Dropping some of them gives the other corners of the lambda cube, such as System F with only (∗,∗)(*, *) and (□,∗)(\square, *).

Reading path

To understand this page from the ground up, read these 26 pages in order. The foundations come first.

Show the path as a graph
Beta reduction, concept, no evidence levelBeta reductionconceptElement, definition, no evidence levelElementdefinitionIntuitionistic logic, concept, no evidence levelIntuitionistic logicconceptLambda calculus, concept, no evidence levelLambda calculusconceptLambda cube, concept, no evidence levelLambda cubeconceptProposition, concept, no evidence levelPropositionconceptSet, concept, no evidence levelSetconceptSet, definition, no evidence levelSetdefinitionConjunction, definition, no evidence levelConjunctiondefinitionDisjunction, definition, no evidence levelDisjunctiondefinitionImplication, definition, no evidence levelImplicationdefinitionNegation, definition, no evidence levelNegationdefinitionBiconditional, definition, no evidence levelBiconditionaldefinitionTruth table, concept, no evidence levelTruth tableconceptModus ponens, concept, no evidence levelModus ponensconceptMathematical proof, concept, no evidence levelMathematical proofconceptPropositional logic, concept, no evidence levelPropositional logicconceptTautology, definition, no evidence levelTautologydefinitionLogical equivalence, definition, no evidence levelLogical equivalencedefinitionDouble negation law, statement, no evidence levelDouble negation lawstatementProof by contradiction, concept, no evidence levelProof by contradictionconceptRussell's paradox, statement, no evidence levelRussell's paradoxstatementType theory, concept, no evidence levelType theoryconceptCurry–Howard correspondence, concept, no evidence levelCurry–Howard correspo…conceptDependent type, concept, no evidence levelDependent typeconceptCalculus of constructions, definition, no evidence levelCalculus of construct…definition
Each page uses the pages above it. The colour of the bar on a box shows how strong the evidence is, and the box also gives it as text. The list has the same pages.
  • no evidence level
  1. Beta reduction concept
  2. Element definition
  3. Intuitionistic logic concept
  4. Lambda calculus concept
  5. Lambda cube concept
  6. Proposition concept
  7. Set concept
  8. Set definition
  9. Conjunction definition
  10. Disjunction definition
  11. Implication definition
  12. Negation definition
  13. Biconditional definition
  14. Truth table concept
  15. Modus ponens concept
  16. Mathematical proof concept
  17. Propositional logic concept
  18. Tautology definition
  19. Logical equivalence definition
  20. Double negation law statement
  21. Proof by contradiction concept
  22. Russell's paradox statement
  23. Type theory concept
  24. Curry–Howard correspondence concept
  25. Dependent type concept
  26. Calculus of constructions definition

Further reading

  1. Web https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculus_of_constructions
About this page
Tag7V5WZPHC1B
URIm2://7V5WZPHC1B
Kinddefinition
WritingW0 stub
MSC03B38, 03B40, 68V15
DefinesCalculus of constructions
UsesDependent type, Beta reduction, Lambda cube
Changed3 November 2026

Markdown · JSON · Edit on GitHub

What this page needs for W1

  • a source with a locator (0 of 1)

The writing levels say how complete the text of a page is. They do not measure its truth.

What links here

No page links to this page yet.