-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 145
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Suggestion for application of SIP #454
Comments
Are you aware of https://git.sr.ht/~jorge-jbs/theory-of-computation? I haven't really looked at the code yet, but it seems very much related to your suggestion |
Btw, the place to discuss this is over on the Agda Zulip: https://agda.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/260790-cubical/topic/Theory.20of.20computation |
The reason I chose this place and not a mailing list, or twitter, or a blog, or Zulip is that I feel that the majority of examples of SIP given in both my lecture notes and the Cubical Agda library are mathematical rather than computational. This is fine with me given my love of maths. But if we want to attract computer scientists too, as I believe we do, we should add lots of interesting and useful applications of univalence to computer science. I believe automata theory is a natural and appealing example for a general audience of computer scientists. Edit: |
Yeah, I totally agree that we need more CS applications of univalence and HITs. I only meant to refer the discussion about the particular formalization that I linked in my previous message to the already existing Zulip conversation about it. Sorry for the confusion, I think we can leave this issue open until someone has done what you suggest |
I am on the process of learning about SIP. Maybe a good candidate is the final coalgebra as a structure? |
Define the type of finite automata, and then characterize its equality using SIP. This should give one of the several notions of automata equivalence known from the literature. (The "right" one?) Like for categories, I expect that perhaps there should be two notions, where one is that of "univalent automaton". Then two of the traditional notions of equivalence should collapse to one (maybe).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: