This website is out of date, please refer to the site on github.

# Why Constructive Logic

Posted on January 9, 2015
Tags: types

Continuing on my quest of writing about my poorly thought out comments, let’s talk about constructive logic. A lot of people in and around the Haskell/FP community will make statements like

The Curry-Howard isomorphism means that you’re proving things in constructive logic.

Usually absent from these remarks is a nice explanation of why constructive logic matches up with the programming we know and love.

In this post I’d like to highlight what constructive logic is intended to capture and why this corresponds so nicely with programming.

## A Bit of History

First things first, let’s discuss the actual origin of constructive logic. It starts with a mathematician and philosopher named Brouwer. He was concerned trying to give an answer to the question “What does it mean to know something to be true” where something is defined as a mathematical proposition.

He settled on the idea of proof being a sort of subjective and personal thing. I know something is true if and only if I can formulate some intuitive proof of it. When viewed this way, the proof I scribble down on paper doesn’t actually validate something’s truthfulness. It’s merely a serialization of my thought process for validating its truthfulness.

Notice that this line of reasoning doesn’t actually specify a precise definition of what verifying something intuitively means. I interpret this idea as something slightly more meta then any single formal system. Rather, when looking a formal system, you ought to verify that its axioms are admissible by your own intuition and then you may go on to accept proofs built off of these axioms.

Now after Brouwer started talking about these ideas Arend Heyting decided to try to write down a logic that captured this notion of “proof is intuition”. The result was this thing called intuitionistic logic. This logic is part of a broader family of logics called “constructive logics”.

## Constructive Logic

The core idea of constructive logic is replacing the notion of truth found in classical logic with an intuitionist version. In a classical logic each proposition is either true or false, regardless of what we know about it.

In our new constructive system, a formula cannot be assigned either until we have direct evidence of it. It’s not that there’s a magical new boolean value, {true, false, i-don’t-know}, it’s just not a meaningful question to ask. It doesn’t make sense in these logics to say “`A` is true” without having a proof of `A`. There isn’t necessarily this Platonic notion of truthfulness, just things we as logicians can prove. This is sometimes why constructive logic is called “logic for humans”.

The consequences of dealing with things in this way can be boils down to a few things. For example, we now know that

1. If `∃x. A(x)` can be proven, then there is some term which we can readily produce `t` so that `A(t)` is provable
2. If `A ∨ B` can be proven then either `A` or `B` is provable and we know which. (note that ∨ is the symbol for OR)

These make sense when you realize that `∃x. A(x)` can only be proven if we have a direct example of it. We can’t indirectly reason that it really ought to exist or merely claim that it must be true in one of a set of cases. We actually need to introduce it by proving an example of it. When our logic enforces this of course we can produce that example!

The same goes for `A ∨ B`, in our logic the only way to prove `A ∨ B` is to either provide a proof of `A` or provide a proof of `B`. If this is the only way to build a `∨` we can always just point to how it was introduced!

If we extend this to and, `∧`: The only way to prove `A ∧ B` is to prove both `A` and `B`. If this is the only way to get to a proof of `A ∧ B` then of course we can get a proof of `A` from `A ∧ B`. `∧` is just behaving like a pair of proofs.

All of this points at one thing: our logic is structured so that we can only prove something when we directly prove it, that’s the spirit of Brouwer’s intuitionism that we’re trying to capture.

There are a lot of different incarnations of constructive logic, in fact pretty much every logic has a constructive cousin. They all share this notion of “We need a direct proof to be true” however. One thing to note that is that some constructive logics conflict a bit with intuitionism. While intuitionism might have provided some of the basis for constructive logics gradually people have poked and pushed the boundaries away from just Brouwer’s intuitionism. For example both Markov’s principle and Church’s thesis state something about all computable functions. While they may be reasonable statements we can’t give a satisfactory proof for them. This is a little confusing I know and I’m only going to talk about constructive logics that Brouwer would approve of.

I encourage the curious reader to poke further at this, it’s rather cool math.

## Who on Earth Cares?

Now while constructive logic probably sounds reasonable, if weird, it doesn’t immediately strike me as particularly useful! Indeed, the main reason why computer science cares about constructivism is because we all use it already.

To better understand this, let’s talk about the Curry-Howard isomorphism. It’s that thing that wasn’t really invented by either Curry or Howard and some claim isn’t best seen as an isomorphism, naming is hard. The Curry-Howard isomorphism states that there’s a mapping from a type to a logical proposition and from a program to a proof.

To show some of the mappings for types

``````    CH(Either a b) = CH(a) ∨ CH(b)
CH((a, b))     = CH(a) ∧ CH(b)
CH( () )       = ⊤ -- True
CH(Void)       = ⊥ -- False
CH(a -> b)     = CH(a) → CH(b)``````

So a program with the type `(a, b)` is really a proof that `a ∧ b` is true. Here the truthfulness of a proposition really means that the corresponding type can be occupied by a program.

Now, onto why this logic we get is constructive. Recall our two conditions for a logic being constructive, first is that if `∃x. A(x)` is provable then there’s a specific `t` where `A(t)` is provable.

Under the Curry Howard isomorphism, ∃ is mapped to existential types (I wonder how that got its name :). That means that a proof of `∃x. A(x)` is something like

``````    -- Haskell ex. syntax is a bit gnaryl :/
data Exists f = forall x. Exists f x

ourProof :: Exists F
ourProof = ...``````

Now we know the only way to construct an `Exists F` is to use the constructor `Exists`. This constructor means that there is at least one specific type for which we could prove `f x`. We can also easily produce this term as well!

``````    isProof :: Exists f -> (f x -> c) -> c
isProof (Exists x) cont = cont x``````

We can always access the specific “witness” we used to construct this `Exists` type with pattern matching.

The next law is similar. If we have a proof of `a ∨ b` we’re supposed to immediately be able to produce a proof of `a` or a proof of `b`.

In programming terms, if we have a program `Either a b` we’re supposed to be able to immediately tell whether this returns `Right` or `Left`! We can make some argument that one of these must be possible to construct but we’re not sure which since we have to be able to actually run this program! If we evaluate a program with the type `Either a b` we’re guaranteed to get either `Left a` or `Right b`.

## The Self-Sacrificing Definition of Constructive Logic

There are a few explanations of constructive logic that basically describe it as “Classical logic - the law of excluded middle”. More verbosely, a constructive logic is just one that forbids

1. `∀ A. A ∨ ¬ A` being provable (the law of excluded middle, LEM)
2. `∀ A. ¬ (¬ A) → A` being provable (the law of double negation)

I carefully chose the words “being provable” because we can easily introduce these as a hypothesis to a proof and still have a sound system. Indeed this is not uncommon when working in Coq or Agda. They’re just not a readily available tool. Looking at them, this should be apparent as they both let us prove something without directly proving it.

This isn’t really a defining aspect of constructivism, just a natural consequence. If we need a proof of `A` to show `A` to be true if we admit `A ∨ ¬ A` by default it defeats the point. We can introduce `A` merely by showing `¬ (¬ A)` which isn’t a proof of `A`! Just a proof that it really ought to be true.

In programming terms this is saying we can’t write these two functions.

``````    data Void

doubleNeg :: ((a -> Void) -> Void) -> a
doubleNeg = ...

lem :: Either a (a -> Void)
lem = ...``````

For the first one we have to choices, either we use this `(a -> Void) -> Void` term we’re given or we construct an `a` without it. Constructing an arbitrary `a` without the function is just equivalent to `forall a. a` which we know to be unoccupied. That means we have to use `(a -> Void) -> Void` which means we have to build an `a -> Void`. We have no way of doing something interesting with that supplied `a` however so we’re completely stuck! The story is similar with `lem`.

In a lot of ways this definition strikes me in the same way that describing functional programming as

Oh it’s just programming where you don’t have variables or objects.

Or static typing as

It’s just dynamic typed programming where you can’t write certain correct programs

I have a strong urge to say “Well.. yes but no!”.

## Wrap Up

Hopefully this helps clarify what exactly people mean when they say Haskell corresponds to a constructive logic or programs are proofs. Indeed this constructivism gives rise to a really cool thing called “proof relevant mathematics”. This is mathematics done purely with constructive proofs. One of the latest ideas to trickle from mathematics to computers is homotopy type theory where we take a proof relevant look at identity types.

Before I wrap up I wanted to share one funny little thought I heard. Constructive mathematics has found a home in automated proof systems. Imagine Brouwer’s horror at hearing we do “intuitionist” proofs that no one will ever look at or try to understand beyond some random mechanical proof assistant!

Thanks to Jon Sterling and Darryl McAdams for the advice and insight