|logic||category theory||type theory|
|true||terminal object/(-2)-truncated object||h-level 0-type/unit type|
|false||initial object||empty type|
|proposition||(-1)-truncated object||h-level 1-type/h-prop|
|disjunction||coproduct ((-1)-truncation of)||sum type (bracket type of)|
|implication||internal hom||function type|
|negation||internal hom into initial object||function type into empty type|
|universal quantification||dependent product||dependent product type|
|existential quantification||dependent sum ((-1)-truncation of)||dependent sum type (bracket type of)|
|equivalence||path space object||identity type|
|equivalence class||quotient||quotient type|
|induction||colimit||inductive type, W-type, M-type|
|higher induction||higher colimit||higher inductive type|
|completely presented set||discrete object/0-truncated object||h-level 2-type/preset/h-set|
|set||internal 0-groupoid||Bishop set/setoid|
|universe||object classifier||type of types|
|modality||closure operator monad||modal type theory, monad (in computer science)|
Burali-Forti’s paradox is a paradox of naive material set theory that was first observed by Cesare Burali-Forti. However, the paradox is not specific to material set theory and can be formulated in structural set theory or in type theory. When formulated in type theory, it is often called Girard’s paradox after Jean-Yves Girard.
There are many variations of the paradox, depending for instance on what precise definition of “well-ordered” (and “ordinal number”) one chooses.
As formulated in type theory by Jean-Yves Girard, the Burali-Forti paradox shows that the original version of Per Martin-Löf’s type theory, which allowed , is inconsistent, in the precise sense that it contains (non-normalizing) proofs of false.