Re:Why is dependent type theory more suitable than set theor...
by newen on Saturday November 21, 2020 @01:03AM
(#25168111)
Not that it makes sense anyway. Somehow πβπ and πβπ.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Why is dependent type theory more suitable than set theor...
by skissane on Saturday November 21, 2020 @01:16AM
(#25168148)
No, the point was that πβπ is a typo and πβπ is what was intended. Type theory will reject the mistake but set theory will accept it. This is then presented as a reason why mathematicians should prefer type-theory-based proof assistants to set-theory-based ones, since the former will catch these kinds of mistakes while the later won't.
Re:Why is dependent type theory more suitable than set theor...
by leanuser83 on Saturday November 21, 2020 @01:16AM
(#25168145)
That is exactly the point being made. That you can spot right away that something "doesn't make sense".
Re:Why is dependent type theory more suitable than set theor...
by bobbylarrybobby on Saturday November 21, 2020 @01:17AM
(#25168153)
Thatβs possible. For instance, X = {{}} and U = {}. Or in general, if X_0 = {} and X_{i+1} = {X_0, ..., X_i}, then X_i is both an element and a subset of X_j whenever i < j.
Re:Why is dependent type theory more suitable than set theor...
by contravariant on Saturday November 21, 2020 @12:11PM
(#25170919)
That happens all the time with ordinals.