In homotopy type theory, few constructions have proved as troublesome as the smash product. While its definition is just as direct as in classical mathematics, one quickly realises that in order to define and reason about functions over iterations of it, one has to verify an exponentially growing number of coherences. This has led to crucial results concerning smash products remaining open. One particularly important such result is the fact that the smash product forms a (1-coherent) symmetric monoidal product on the universe of pointed types. This fact was used, without a complete proof, by, for example, Brunerie ((2016) PhD thesis, Université Nice Sophia Antipolis) to construct the cup product on integral cohomology and is, more generally, a fundamental result in traditional algebraic topology. In this paper, we salvage the situation by introducing a simple informal heuristic for reasoning about functions defined over iterated smash products. We then use the heuristic to verify, for example, the hexagon and pentagon identities, thereby obtaining a proof of symmetric monoidality. We also provide a formal statement of the heuristic in terms of an induction principle concerning the construction of homotopies of functions defined over iterated smash products. The key results presented here have been formalised in the proof assistant Cubical Agda.

The continuum has been one of the most controversial topics in mathematics since the time of the Greeks. Some mathematicians, such as Euclid and Cantor, held the position that a line is composed of points, while others, like Aristotle, Weyl, and Brouwer, argued that a line is not composed of points but rather a matrix of a continued insertion of points. In spite of this disagreement on the structure of the continuum, they did distinguish the temporal line from the spatial line. In this paper, we argue that there is indeed a difference between the intuition of the spatial continuum and the intuition of the temporal continuum. The main primary aspect of the temporal continuum, in contrast with the spatial continuum, is the notion of orientation.

The continuum has usually been mathematically modeled by Cauchy sequences and the Dedekind cuts. While in the first model, each point can be approximated by rational numbers, in the second one, that is not possible constructively. We argue that points on the temporal continuum cannot be approximated by rationals as a temporal point is a flow that sinks to the past. In our model, the continuum is a collection of constructive Dedekind cuts, and we define two topologies for temporal continuum: 1. oriented topology and 2. the ordinary topology. We prove that every total function from the oriented topological space to the ordinary one is continuous.

Working constructively, we study continuous directed complete posets (dcpos) and the Scott topology. Our two primary novelties are a notion of intrinsic apartness and a notion of sharp elements. Being apart is a positive formulation of being unequal, similar to how inhabitedness is a positive formulation of nonemptiness. To exemplify sharpness, we note that a lower real is sharp if and only if it is located. Our first main result is that for a large class of continuous dcpos, the Bridges–Vîţǎ apartness topology and the Scott topology coincide. Although we cannot expect a tight or cotransitive apartness on nontrivial dcpos, we prove that the intrinsic apartness is both tight and cotransitive when restricted to the sharp elements of a continuous dcpo. These include the strongly maximal elements, as studied by Smyth and Heckmann. We develop the theory of strongly maximal elements highlighting its connection to sharpness and the Lawson topology. Finally, we illustrate the intrinsic apartness, sharpness, and strong maximality by considering several natural examples of continuous dcpos: the Cantor and Baire domains, the partial Dedekind reals, the lower reals and, finally, an embedding of Cantor space into an exponential of lifted sets.

This work presents game semantics of Martin-Löf type theory (MLTT) equipped with the One, the Zero, the N, Pi, Sigma and Id types. Game semantics interprets a wide range of logic and computation, even the polymorphic $\lambda$-calculus; however, it has remained a well-known challenge in the past 25 years to achieve game semantics of dependent type theories such as MLTT, and past attempts lack directness or generality. For instance, the approach taken by Abramsky et al. interprets Sigma types indirectly by formal lists, not by games, making an interpretation of universes hopeless, and it is limited to a very specific class of dependent types. The difficulty of this challenge comes from a conflict between the extensionality of dependent types and the intensionality of game semantics. We overcome the challenge by inventing a novel variant of games, while we keep strategies unchanged, in such a way that this variant inherits the strong points of conventional game semantics. Also, our method enables an interpretation of subtyping on dependent types for the first time as game semantics. We finally give a new, game-semantic proof of the independence of Markov’s principle from MLTT. This proof illustrates an advantage of our intensional model over extensional ones such as Hyland’s effective topos.

Higher-dimensional rewriting systems are tools to analyse the structure of formally reducing terms to normal forms, as well as comparing the different reduction paths that lead to those normal forms. This higher structure can be captured by finding a homotopy basis for the rewriting system. We show that the basic notions of confluence and wellfoundedness are sufficient to recursively build such a homotopy basis, with a construction reminiscent of an argument by Craig C. Squier. We then go on to translate this construction to the setting of homotopy type theory, where managing equalities between paths is important in order to construct functions which are coherent with respect to higher dimensions. Eventually, we apply the result to approximate a series of open questions in homotopy type theory, such as the characterisation of the homotopy groups of the free group on a set and the pushout of 1-types. This paper expands on our previous conference contribution Coherence via Wellfoundedness by laying out the construction in the language of higher-dimensional rewriting.

The paper describes three models of the real field based on subsets of the integer sequences. The three models are compared to the Harthong–Reeb line. Two of the new models, contrary to the Harthong–Reeb line, provide accurate integer “views” on real numbers at a sequence of growing scales $B^n$ ( $B\ge2$ ).

We show that numerous distinctive concepts of constructive mathematics arise automatically from an “antithesis” translation of affine logic into intuitionistic logic via a Chu/Dialectica construction. This includes apartness relations, complemented subsets, anti-subgroups and anti-ideals, strict and non-strict order pairs, cut-valued metrics, and apartness spaces. We also explain the constructive bifurcation of some classical concepts using the choice between multiplicative and additive affine connectives. Affine logic and the antithesis construction thus systematically “constructivize” classical definitions, handling the resulting bookkeeping automatically.

Bishop’s presentation of his informal system of constructive mathematics BISH was on purpose closer to the proof-irrelevance of classical mathematics, although a form of proof-relevance was evident in the use of several notions of moduli (of convergence, of uniform continuity, of uniform differentiability, etc.). Focusing on membership and equality conditions for sets given by appropriate existential formulas, we define certain families of proof sets that provide a BHK-interpretation of formulas that correspond to the standard atomic formulas of a first-order theory, within Bishop set theory $(\mathrm{BST})$ , our minimal extension of Bishop’s theory of sets. With the machinery of the general theory of families of sets, this BHK-interpretation within BST is extended to complex formulas. Consequently, we can associate to many formulas $\phi$ of BISH a set ${\texttt{Prf}}(\phi)$ of “proofs” or witnesses of $\phi$ . Abstracting from several examples of totalities in BISH, we define the notion of a set with a proof-relevant equality, and of a Martin-Löf set, a special case of the former, the equality of which corresponds to the identity type of a type in intensional Martin-Löf type theory $(\mathrm{MLTT})$ . Through the concepts and results of BST notions and facts of MLTT and its extensions (either with the axiom of function extensionality or with Vooevodsky’s axiom of univalence) can be translated into BISH. While Bishop’s theory of sets is standardly understood through its translation to MLTT, our development of BST offers a partial translation in the converse direction.

This paper was read by Michael Dummett at Leiden University on September 26, 1992 at the invitation by Göran Sundholm to address the topic mentioned in the title. Dummett’s lecture was part of a workshop, Meaning Theory and Intuitionism, with 12 invited speakers over three days. After the workshop, Dummett gave a copy of the manuscript to Sundholm together with permission to publish it. At the time, nothing came of the publication plans, nor did Dummett publish it in any other form. The text has remained virtually unknown, and apart from a lecture of Per Martin-Löf, also at Leiden, on the same topic (published in this journal), it has received no scholarly attention. We are indebted to Dummett’s literary executor, Professor Ian Rumfitt, of All Souls College, Oxford, who after nearly three decades confirmed the earlier permission to publish.

Göran Sundholm

Ansten Klev

Real numbers do not admit an extensional procedure for observing discrete information, such as the first digit of its decimal expansion, because every extensional, computable map from the reals to the integers is constant, as is well known. We overcome this by considering real numbers equipped with additional structure, which we call a locator. With this structure, it is possible, for instance, to construct a signed-digit representation or a Cauchy sequence, and conversely, these intensional representations give rise to a locator. Although the constructions are reminiscent of computable analysis, instead of working with a notion of computability, we simply work constructively to extract observable information, and instead of working with representations, we consider a certain locatedness structure on real numbers.

In the framework of Bishop’s constructive mathematics we introduce co-convexity as a property of subsets B of ${\left\{ {0,1} \right\}^{\rm{*}}}$, the set of finite binary sequences, and prove that co-convex bars are uniform. Moreover, we establish a canonical correspondence between detachable subsets B of ${\left\{ {0,1} \right\}^{\rm{*}}}$ and uniformly continuous functions f defined on the unit interval such that B is a bar if and only if the corresponding function f is positive-valued, B is a uniform bar if and only if f has positive infimum, and B is co-convex if and only if f satisfies a weak convexity condition.

This paper presents a systematic study of the prehistory of the traditional subsystems of second-order arithmetic that feature prominently in the reverse mathematics program promoted by Friedman and Simpson. We look in particular at: (i) the long arc from Poincaré to Feferman as concerns arithmetic definability and provability, (ii) the interplay between finitism and the formalization of analysis in the lecture notes and publications of Hilbert and Bernays, (iii) the uncertainty as to the constructive status of principles equivalent to Weak König’s Lemma, and (iv) the large-scale intellectual backdrop to arithmetical transfinite recursion in descriptive set theory and its effectivization by Borel, Lusin, Addison, and others.

Euclidean geometry, as presented by Euclid, consists of straightedge-and-compass constructions and rigorous reasoning about the results of those constructions. We show that Euclidean geometry can be developed using only intuitionistic logic. This involves finding “uniform” constructions where normally a case distinction is used. For example, in finding a perpendicular to line L through point p, one usually uses two different constructions, “erecting” a perpendicular when p is on L, and “dropping” a perpendicular when p is not on L, but in constructive geometry, it must be done without a case distinction. Classically, the models of Euclidean (straightedge-and-compass) geometry are planes over Euclidean fields. We prove a similar theorem for constructive Euclidean geometry, by showing how to define addition and multiplication without a case distinction about the sign of the arguments. With intuitionistic logic, there are two possible definitions of Euclidean fields, which turn out to correspond to different versions of the parallel postulate.

We consider three versions of Euclid’s parallel postulate. The two most important are Euclid’s own formulation in his Postulate 5, which says that under certain conditions two lines meet, and Playfair’s axiom (dating from 1795), which says there cannot be two distinct parallels to line L through the same point p. These differ in that Euclid 5 makes an existence assertion, while Playfair’s axiom does not. The third variant, which we call the strong parallel postulate, isolates the existence assertion from the geometry: it amounts to Playfair’s axiom plus the principle that two distinct lines that are not parallel do intersect. The first main result of this paper is that Euclid 5 suffices to define coordinates, addition, multiplication, and square roots geometrically.

We completely settle the questions about implications between the three versions of the parallel postulate. The strong parallel postulate easily implies Euclid 5, and Euclid 5 also implies the strong parallel postulate, as a corollary of coordinatization and definability of arithmetic. We show that Playfair does not imply Euclid 5, and we also give some other independence results. Our independence proofs are given without discussing the exact choice of the other axioms of geometry; all we need is that one can interpret the geometric axioms in Euclidean field theory. The independence proofs use Kripke models of Euclidean field theories based on carefully constructed rings of real-valued functions. “Field elements” in these models are real-valued functions.