# Agda Writer

My student Marko Koležnik is about to finish his Master’s degree in Mathematics at the University of Ljubljana. He implemented Agda Writer, a graphical user interface  for the Agda proof assistant on the OS X platform. As he puts it, the main advantage of Agda Writer is no Emacs, but the list of cool features is a bit longer:

• bundled Agda: it comes with preinstalled Agda so there is zero installation effort (of course, you can use your own Agda as well).
• UTF-8 keyboard shortcuts: it is super-easy to enter UTF-8 characters by typing their LaTeX names, just like in Emacs. It trumps Emacs by converting ASCII arrows to their UTF8 equivalents on the fly. In the preferences you can customize the long list of shortcuts to your liking.
• the usual features expected on OS X are all there: auto-completion, clickable error messages and goals, etc.

Agda Writer is open source. Everybody is welcome to help out and participate on the Agda Writer repository.

Who is Agda Writer for? Obviously for students, mathematicians, and other potential users who were not born with Emacs hard-wired into their brains. It is great for teaching Agda as you do not have to spend two weeks explaining Emacs. The only drawback is that it is limited to OS X. Someone should write equivalent Windows and Linux applications. Then perhaps proof assistants will have a chance of being more widely adopted.

# Provably considered harmful

This is officially a rant and should be read as such.

Here is my pet peeve: theoretical computer scientists misuse the word “provably”. Stop it. Stop it!

# Intermediate truth values

I have not written a blog post in a while, so I decided to write up a short observation about truth values in intuitionistic logic which sometimes seems a bit puzzling.

Let $\Omega$ be the set of truth values (in Coq this would be the setoid whose underlying type is $\mathsf{Prop}$ and equality is equivalence $\leftrightarrow$, while in HoTT it is the h-propostions). Call a truth value $p : \Omega$ intermediate if it is neither true nor false, i.e., $p \neq \bot$ and $p \neq \top$. Such a “third” truth value $p$ is proscribed by excluded middle.

The puzzle is to explain how the following two facts fit together:

1. “There is no intermediate truth value” is an intuitionistic theorem.
2. There are models of intuitionistic logic with many truth values.

# The troublesome reflection rule (TYPES 2015 slides)

Here are the slides of my TYPES 2015 talk “The troublesome reflection rule” with fairly detailed presenter notes. The meeting is  taking place in Tallinn, Estonia – a very cool country in many senses (it’s not quite spring yet even though we’re in the second half of May, and it’s the country that gave us Skype).