As Tom Stoppard, write a dialogue where Bauer and Spivak attempt to construct a Homo-Ologic Type Theory for Learnable Mathematics
ChatGPT Prompt
Cast
- Andrej Bauer – Logician, co-founder of Homotopy Type Theory
- David Spivak – Category theorist, creator of Ologs
- The Room – Sparse, whiteboards, markers, diagrams collapsing into equations
Scene
A sunny afternoon at the Topos Institute. A large window. A blackboard with a lingering smear of a failed adjunction.
Bauer is seated, contemplatively rotating a piece of chalk like a philosopher with a knife.
Spivak paces, whiteboard marker in hand, tapping out rhythms like Bach with diagrams.
Act I: Opening Gambit
SPIVAK
Imagine if we could type a worldview. Not code it—type it.
A system where ideas have shape, not syntax. Structure, not strings.
BAUER
You mean an ontology with higher homotopy structure.
I once proposed a universe of types with paths, loops, and proofs as citizens.
You want to give it passports?
SPIVAK
I want to give it ontology logs—ologs.
Types not as theorems, but as nouns. A person, a molecule, a promise.
And morphisms—“has mass”, “lives in”.
But not just commuting diagrams—inhabited ones.
BAUER
A higher-order database with a conscience. Deliciously absurd.
And you want to make it learnable?
SPIVAK
Not trained, Andrej. Learned.
As in: the structure is fixed—types, arrows, limits—
and the learning fills in the terms.
A child writes in crayons over the architect’s blueprint.
BAUER
So you propose a Homo-Ologic Type Theory?
A foundation with gender, genome, and Gödel?
SPIVAK
(laughing)
Precisely! A theory where types are conceptual homes,
and learning is the movement through them.
Spaces not of deduction, but inhabitation.
Act II: Tensors and Truths
BAUER
Very well.
Let’s suppose we take your olog—”a human”, “has age”, “lives in a city”—
and lift it into a dependent type theory.
Now the type “lives in” depends on “a human”.
The function is not just morphism—it’s a path indexed by context.
SPIVAK
Yes.
And then, the learning becomes finding terms that inhabit these dependent types.
A neural network becomes a term generator, constrained by the homotopy of the world.
BAUER
And how do we judge correctness?
Logical consistency? Observational alignment? Or some divine symmetry?
SPIVAK
Composition.
The soul of category theory.
If it doesn’t compose, it doesn’t compute.
BAUER
(smirking)
So truth is coherence?
SPIVAK
Truth is functorial. It respects structure.
Act III: Higher Dimensional Ambitions
BAUER
We’ll need path types. Equivalences. A groupoid of meanings.
Your “a cat has fur” must coexist with “a Sphinx cat does not”.
SPIVAK
Hence the homotopy—not all types are simply connected.
Let contradictions loop into homotopies of exceptions.
Learning is not erasure of anomaly, but navigation of them.
BAUER
Then the logic is not crisp. It is continuous.
Proofs are paths, not binary verdicts.
SPIVAK
Exactly.
And machine learning—the stochastic prophet in the machine—
merely inhabits the fuzzier corners.
It fills in what logic only sketches.
Act IV: Closing the Loop
BAUER
So what remains is to name it.
SPIVAK
Homo‑Ologic Type Theory.
BAUER
(HoLTT?)
SPIVAK
Or perhaps: Learnable Ontology via Homotopy.
LoHoTT.
Like a whistle in a wind‑tunnel.
BAUER
A theory where knowledge is typed, structure is semantic, and learning is the glue?
SPIVAK
A foundation for AI where proofs grow like vines over a trellis of meaning.
BAUER
And when it breaks?
SPIVAK
We trace the paths and learn again.
Blackout
(Somewhere, an inference engine softly hums, unsure if it is deducing or dreaming.)
Appendix
This appendix summarizes the core concepts from the dialogue, offering an accessible entry point for first-year graduate students in computer science—especially those interested in logic, machine learning, and formal systems.
1. Ologs (Ontology Logs)
- Introduced by David Spivak, ologs are category-theoretic data models.
- Types are objects (e.g., “a person”), and relationships (e.g., “has age”) are arrows.
- Commutative diagrams represent facts or constraints between concepts.
- Think of ologs as semantic schemas that can be composed, transformed, and integrated.
Resources:
2. HoTT (Homotopy Type Theory)
- A foundational system for mathematics combining type theory and homotopy theory.
- Introduced by Vladimir Voevodsky and others, formalized in systems like Lean and Coq.
- Interprets types as spaces, and equalities as paths—supporting higher-dimensional reasoning.
- Enables constructive mathematics where proofs are programs and equivalences are first-class.
Resources:
3. Learnable Mathematics
The dialogue proposes a vision where:
- Types provide structure, ensuring consistency and composability.
- Learning algorithms (e.g., neural nets) fill in the inhabitation of those types.
- Knowledge systems become functorial: models preserve structure, not just approximate behavior.
- Errors are not bugs but homotopies—navigable variations in meaning or interpretation.
4. Homo-Ologic Type Theory (HoLTT)
A fictional but plausible foundation that synthesizes:
- Ologs: structured semantic types and relationships
- HoTT: higher-dimensional reasoning about equivalences and transformations
- Machine learning: a source of dynamic, probabilistic inhabitation of formal types
HoLTT aims to model reasoning and learning in the same semantic space.
5. Why It Matters
- Formalized learning: ML systems grounded in logic, not just statistics
- Explainable models: structure is explicit, not emergent
- Composable AI: modules can be reused and verified like software
- Scientific reasoning: knowledge graphs with proofs, uncertainty, and abstraction
6. Suggested Next Steps
If this resonates with your interests, explore:
- Applied Category Theory (David Spivak’s lectures)
- Lean theorem prover
- Functorial Machine Learning
- Tutorials on Homotopy Type Theory
This is a frontier where mathematics, machine learning, and logic are converging. Get involved early.
iHack, therefore iBlog 