"Strictly positive" in Agda

I'm trying to encode some denotational semantics into Agda based on a program I wrote in Haskell.

data Value = FunVal (Value -> Value)
           | PriVal Int
           | ConVal Id [Value]
           | Error  String

In Agda, the direct translation would be;

data Value : Set where
    FunVal : (Value -> Value) -> Value
    PriVal : ℕ -> Value
    ConVal : String -> List Value -> Value
    Error  : String -> Value

but I get an error relating to the FunVal because;

Value is not strictly positive, because it occurs to the left of an arrow in the type of the constructor FunVal in the definition of Value.

What does this mean? Can I encode this in Agda? Am I going about it the wrong way?

Thanks.

---

HOAS doesn't work in Agda, because of this:

apply : Value -> Value -> Value
apply (FunVal f) x = f x
apply _ x = Error "Applying non-function"

w : Value
w = FunVal (x -> apply x x)

Now, notice that evaluating apply ww gives you apply ww back again. The term apply ww has no normal form, which is a no-no in agda. Using this idea and the type:

data P : Set where
    MkP : (P -> Set) -> P

We can derive a contradiction.

One of the ways out of these paradoxes is only to allow strictly positive recursive types, which is what Agda and Coq choose. That means that if you declare:

data X : Set where
    MkX : F X -> X

That F must be a strictly positive functor, which means that X may never occur to the left of any arrow. So these types are strictly positive in X :

X * X
Nat -> X
X * (Nat -> X)

But these are not:

X -> Bool
(X -> Nat) -> Nat  -- this one is "positive", but not strictly
(X * Nat) -> X

So in short, no you can't represent your data type in Agda. And de Bruijn encoding won't work either if you are going to evaluate terms. You can't embed the untyped lambda calculus into Agda because it has terms without normal forms, and Agda requires all programs to be normalizing.

链接地址: http://www.djcxy.com/p/43340.html

上一篇: Agda和Idris的区别

下一篇: Agda的“严格正面”