# Theories

## What is a GAT?

Generalized Algebraic Theories (GATs) are the backbone of GATlab so let's expand a bit on GATs and how they fit into the bigger picture of algebra.

An algebraic structure, like a group or category, is a mathematical object whose axioms all take the form of equations that are universally quantified (the equations have no exceptions). That’s not a formal definition but it’s a good heuristic. There are different ways to make this precise. The oldest, going back to universal algebra in the early 20th centrury, are algebraic theories.

Universal algebra (sometimes called general algebra) is the field of mathematics that studies algebraic structures themselves, not examples ("models") of algebraic structures. For instance, rather than take particular groups as the object of study, in universal algebra one takes the class of groups as an object of study. In an algebraic theory, you have a collection of (total) operations and they obey a set of equational axioms. Classically, there is only a single generating type, but there are also typed or multi-sorted versions of algebraic theories. Most of the classical structures of abstract algebra, such as groups, rings, and modules, can be defined as algebraic theories.

Importantly, the theory of categories is not algebraic. In other words, a category cannot be defined as a (multi-sorted) algebraic theory. The reason is that the operation of composition is partial, since you can only compose morphisms with compatible (co)domains. Now, categories sure feel like algebraic structures, so people have come up with generalizations of algebraic theories that accomodate categories and related structures.

The first of these was Freyd’s essentially algebraic theories. In an essentially algebraic theory, you can have partially defined operations; however, to maintain the equational character of the system, the domains of operations must themselves be defined equationally. For example, the theory of categories would be defined as having two types, Ob and Hom, and the composition operation compose(f::Hom,g::Hom)::Hom would have domain given by the equation codom(f) == dom(g). As your theories get more elaborate, the sets of equations defining the domains get more complicated and reasoning about the structure is overwhelming.

Later, Cartmell proposed generalized algebraic theories, which solves the same problem but in a different way. Rather than having partial operations, you have total operations but on dependent types (types that are parameterized by values). So now the composition operation has signature compose(f::Hom(A,B), g::Hom(B,C))::Hom(A,C) ⊣ [A::Ob, B::Ob, C::Ob] exactly as appears in GATlab. This is closer to the way that mathematicians actually think and write about categories. For example, if you look at the definitions of category, functor, and natural transformation in Emily Riehl’s textbook, you will see that they are already essentially in the form of a GAT, whereas they require translation into an essentially algebraic theory. Nevertheless, GATs and essentially algebraic theories have the same expressive power, at least in their standard set-based semantics. GATs provide a version of the computer scientist's type theory that plays well with the mathematician's algebra, thus, providing a perfect opportunity for computer algebra systems.

## The @theory macro

GATlab implements a version of the GAT formalism on top of Julia's type system, taking advantage of Julia macros to provide a pleasant syntax. GATs are defined using the @theory macro.

For example, the theory of categories could be defined by:

@theory ThCategory begin
@op begin
(→) := Hom
(⋅) := compose
end
Ob::TYPE
Hom(dom::Ob, codom::Ob)::TYPE
id(A::Ob)::(A → A)
compose(f::(A → B), g::(B → C))::(A → C) ⊣ [A::Ob, B::Ob, C::Ob]
(f ⋅ g) ⋅ h == f ⋅ (g ⋅ h) ⊣ [A::Ob, B::Ob, C::Ob, D::Ob,
f::(A → B), g::(B → C), h::(C → D)]
f ⋅ id(B) == f ⊣ [A::Ob, B::Ob, f::(A → B)]
id(A) ⋅ f == f ⊣ [A::Ob, B::Ob, f::(A → B)]
end

The code is simplified only slightly from the official GATlab definition of ThCategory. The theory has two type constructors, Ob (object) and Hom (morphism). The type Hom is a dependent type, depending on two objects, named dom (domain) and codom (codomain). The theory has two term constructors, id (identity) and compose (composition).

Notice how the return types of the term constructors depend on the argument values. For example, the term id(A) has type Hom(A,A). The term constructor compose also uses context variables, listed to the right of the ⊣ symbol. These context variables can also be defined after a where clause, but the left hand side must be surrounded by parentheses. This allows us to write compose(f,g), instead of the more verbose compose(A,B,C,f,g) (for discussion, see Cartmell, 1986, Sec 10: Informal syntax).

Notice the @op call where we can create method aliases that can then be used throughout the rest of the theory and outside of definition. We can either use this block notation, or a single line notation such as @op (⋅) := compose to define a single alias. Here we utilize this functionality by replacing the Hom and compose methods with their equivalent Unicode characters, → and ⋅ respectively. These aliases are also automatically available to definitions that inherit a theory that already has the alias defined.

The result of the @theory macro is a module with the following members:

1. For each declaration in the theory (which includes term constructors, type constructors, arguments to type constructors (i.e. accessors like dom and codom), and aliases of the above), a function named with the name of the declaration. These functions are not necessarily original to this module; they may be imported. This allows us to, for instance, use Base.+ as a method for a theory. For instance, ThCategory has functions Ob, Hom, dom, codom, compose, id, ⋅, →.

2. A submodule called Meta with members:

• T: a zero-field struct that serves as a type-level signifier for the theory.
• theory: a constant of type GAT which stores the data of the theory.
• @theory: a macro which expands directly to theory, which is used to pass around the data of the theory at macro-expand time.
Note

In general, a GAT consists of a signature, defining the types and terms of the theory, and a set of axioms, the equational laws satisfied by models of the theory. The theory of categories, for example, has axioms of unitality and associativity. At present, GATlab supports the specification of both signatures and the axioms, but only uses the axioms as part of rewriting via e-graphs: it is not automatically checked that models of a GAT satisfy the axioms. It is the responsibility of the programmer to ensure this.

#### References

• Cartmell, 1986: Generalized algebraic theories and contextual categories, DOI:10.1016/0168-0072(86)90053-9
• Cartmell, 1978, PhD thesis: Generalized algebraic theories and contextual categories
• Pitts, 1995: Categorical logic, Sec 6: Dependent types