publisher = {Association for Computing Machinery},
address = {New York, NY, USA},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1145/3437992.3439922},
doi = {10.1145/3437992.3439922},
abstract = {The generality and pervasiveness of category theory in modern mathematics makes it a frequent and useful target of formalization. It is however quite challenging to formalize, for a variety of reasons. Agda currently (i.e. in 2020) does not have a standard, working formalization of category theory. We document our work on solving this dilemma. The formalization revealed a number of potential design choices, and we present, motivate and explain the ones we picked. In particular, we find that alternative definitions or alternative proofs from those found in standard textbooks can be advantageous, as well as "fit" Agda's type theory more smoothly. Some definitions regarded as equivalent in standard textbooks turn out to make different "universe level" assumptions, with some being more polymorphic than others. We also pay close attention to engineering issues so that the library integrates well with Agda's own standard library, as well as being compatible with as many of supported type theories in Agda as possible.},
booktitle = {Proceedings of the 10th ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Certified Programs and Proofs},
abstract = {The λ-calculus is considered a useful mathematical tool in the study of programming languages, since programs can be identified with λ-terms. However, if one goes further and uses βη-conversion to prove equivalence of programs, then a gross simplification is introduced (programs are identified with total functions from values to values) that may jeopardise the applicability of theoretical results. In this paper we introduce calculi, based on a categorical semantics for computations, that provide a correct basis for proving equivalence of programs for a wide range of notions of computation.}
