%%* "Types Considered Harmful" -- draft
%   Cleared by Sam 18 Nov 92

\documentstyle[11pt]{article}

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%                 MODIFICATION DATE                            %
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%                                                              %
% Defines \moddate to expand to the modification date like     %
%                                                              %
%    Mon  5 Aug 1991  [10:34]                                  %
%                                                              %
% Assumes editor updates modification date in standard SRC     %
% style.  (Should work for any user name).                     %
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\def\ypmd{%                                                    %
%                                                              %
%                                                              %
  Last modified on Wed Dec 23 10:54:52 PST 1992 by lamport     %
  endypmd}                                                     %
%                                                              %
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\newcommand{\moddate}{\expandafter\xpmd\ypmd}                  %
\def\xpmd Last modified                                        %
on #1 #2 #3 #4:#5:#6 #7 #8 by #9 endypmd{#1 \ #3 #2 #8 \ [#4:#5]} %
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

% \mathdef{foo} : for math formulas that appear in or out of math mode.
\newcommand{\mathdef}[1]{\relax\ifmmode #1\else $#1$\fi}


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%                   COMMANDS FOR WRITING SPECS                 %
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%                                                              %
% \choose
%  \union(S)     ==  union of elements of S
%  \subsets(S)    ==  set of subsets of S
%  \implies      == =>
%  \arrow        == ->
%  \X            == X (times)
%  \lr           == [[
%  \rr           == ]]
%  \lseq         == <<
%  \rseq         == >>
%  \deq          == equals by definition
%  \M{F}         == semantic meaning of F
%  \bs           == \ (backslash)
% :o:  == concatenation
% :oo: == infinity symbol

\renewcommand{\choose}{{\bf choose}}
\newcommand{\union}[1]{\mathdef{\bigcup#1}}
\newcommand{\subsets}[1]{\mathdef{2^{#1}}}
\newcommand{\implies}{\mathdef{\Rightarrow}}
\newcommand{\arrow}{\mathdef{\rightarrow}}
\newcommand{\X}{\mathdef{\times}}
\newcommand{\lr}{\speclblb}
\newcommand{\rr}{\specrbrb}
\newcommand{\lseq}{\specltlt}
\newcommand{\rseq}{\specgtgt}
\newcommand{\deq}{\mathdef{\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}{=}}}
\newcommand{\M}[1]{\mathdef{[\![#1]\!]}}
\newcommand{\bs}{\mathdef{\backslash}}
\renewcommand{\o}{\circ}
\newcommand{\oo}{\infty}

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%                   MISCELLANEOUS COMMANDS                     %
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

% \nat     == Nat
% \real    == Real
% \rational 
% \integer == Int
% \false, \true
% \len     == len
% \fact    == fact
\newcommand{\false}{{\sf false}}
\newcommand{\true}{{\sf true}}
\newcommand{\nat}{{\bf N}}
\newcommand{\integer}{{\bf Z}}
\newcommand{\real}{{\bf R}}
\newcommand{\rational}{{\bf Q}}
\newcommand{\len}{{\it len\/}}
\newcommand{\seq}{{\it seq\/}}
\newcommand{\SUM}{\mbox{\boldmath{$\Sigma$}}}
\newcommand{\fact}{{\it fact\/}}

\title{Types Considered Harmful}

\author{Leslie Lamport\\{\tt lamport@src.dec.com}}
\date{\moddate}
\begin{document}
\maketitle

\section{Introduction}

A mathematician might define $\len(s)$ to denote the length of $s$,
for any finite sequence $s$.  Many computer scientists would find this
definition naive.  They consider \len\ to be a highly polymorphic
function, and they believe it can be defined formally only in a
language with a sophisticated type system---if it can be defined at
all.  We show that conventional mathematics can be formalized without
the use of types.  It is quite easy to define \len\ formally.

Types are so widely accepted in programming languages that most
computer scientists have forgotten their drawbacks.  Even if the
benefits outweigh the drawbacks for programming languages, the same
balance need not hold for other domains.  We claim that types are not
just unnecessary, they are harmful in formalizing mathematics.  This
claim has implications for the design of specification languages and
mechanical theorem provers.




\section{Formalizing Mathematics}

\subsection{Zermelo-Fraenkel Set Theory}

The formalism that seems to be most widely regarded as the best
foundation for ordinary mathematics is Zermelo-Fraenkel set
theory~\cite{shoenfield:axioms}.  The particular version of
Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory described here will be called ZF\@.  We
consider formal definitions, but not formal reasoning, so we will not
describe the precise axioms of ZF\@.

In ZF, one reasons only about sets.  Since we want to reason about the
number 2, it must be a set.  Mathematicians usually don't think of 2
as a set because they don't care what its elements are.  To be
consistent with ordinary usage, we let {\em value\/} be synonymous
with the term {\em set\/} of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, and we use
{\em set\/} to refer to those values that mathematicians usually
regard as sets, such as the set \real\ of real numbers.

Figure~\ref{fig:ZF-operators} describes a collection of operators from
set theory that we have found adequate for ordinary mathematics.  Some
of these operators can be defined in terms of the others.  The rest
are effectively defined by axioms.  For example, the Separation
Axiom~\cite[page 325]{shoenfield:axioms} asserts that, for any set
$S$, the expression $\{x \in S : p\}$ denotes a set consisting of all
elements of $S$ satisfying $p$.  This axiom is valid only because $S$
is considered to lie outside the scope of the bound variable $x$.
Thus,
 $\{x \in \{x\} : x\notin x\}$ 
equals 
 $\{y \in \{x\} : y \notin y\}$, 
which equals either $\{x\}$ or $\emptyset$.  Similarly, $S$ lies
outside the scope of $x$ in $\{e : x \in S \}$.


For most uses of ZF, it suffices to understand the meanings of the
operators of Figure~\ref{fig:ZF-operators}, and to know that two sets
are equal iff (if and only if) they have the same elements.  Certain
applications require axioms that guarantee the existence of ``enough''
distinct sets.  In computer science, it seems necessary only to assume
that, for every set $S$, there is some value $v$ such that $v\notin S$.
More sophisticated mathematical applications may need more powerful
assumptions, such as the Axiom of
 Choice~\cite[page 335]{shoenfield:axioms}.

\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{minipage}{\textwidth}
\begin{tabbing}
\tt $=$ \ \ $\neq$ \ \ $\in$ \ \ $\notin$ \ \ $\emptyset$
  \ \ $\cup$ \ \ $\cap$ \ \ $\subseteq$ \ \
  $\bs$ {\small [set difference]}\\[.5\jot]
$\{e_1, \ldots , e_n\}$ \hspace{1em}\= \kill
%
$\{e_1, \ldots , e_n\}$     
  \> \small [Set consisting of elements $e_i$] \\[.5\jot]
$\{x \in S : p\}$       
  \> \small [Set of elements $x$ in $S$ satisfying $p$] \\[.5\jot]
$\{e : x \in S \}$       
  \> \small [Set of elements $e$ such that $x$ in $S$] \\[.5\jot]
\tt \subsets{S}
  \> \small [Set of subsets of $S$] \\[.5\jot]
\tt \union{S}
  \> \small [Union of all elements of $S$]\\[.5\jot]
$\langle e_1, \ldots , e_n\rangle$  
  \> \small [The $n$-tuple whose $i^{\rm th}$ component is $e_i$]\\[.5\jot]
$S_1 \X \ldots \X S_n$
   \> \small [The set of all $n$-tuples with $i^{\rm th}$ component in $S_i$]
\end{tabbing}
\end{minipage}
\caption[]{The operators of set theory.}
\label{fig:ZF-operators}
\end{figure}

Naive informal reasoning about sets can be unsound.  A common source of
error is reasoning about collections of elements that are ``too big''
to be sets, where a collection is too big if it has ``as many elements
as'' the collection of all sets.  For example, the collection of all
sets having a single element is too big because the correspondence
 $S\,\leftrightarrow\,\{S\}$
shows that there are as many single-element sets as there are sets.
Such errors are avoided by using the operators of
Figure~\ref{fig:ZF-operators}, with which one can construct only legal
sets.  For example, Russell's paradox asserts that the ``set''
$\cal R$ of all sets that are not elements of themselves satisfies
${\cal R}\in{\cal R}$ iff it satisfies ${\cal R}\notin{\cal R}$.  The
``set'' ${\cal R}$ cannot be expressed with the operators of
Figure~\ref{fig:ZF-operators}.

The formulas of ZF are formed from the operators of set theory, the
usual operations of first-order predicate logic, and two additional
constructs.  The first is
 ${\bf if\;} p {\bf \;then\;} e_{1} {\bf \;else\;}e_{2}$, which
equals $e_{1}$ if $p$ is true, and otherwise equals $e_{2}$.  The
second is $\choose\;x : p$, which denotes some arbitrarily chosen
value $x$ for which the predicate $p$ is true, if one exists, and
otherwise denotes a completely arbitrary value.  For example,
  \( \choose\; x : x\notin\real\)
denotes some unspecified value that is not a real number. The \choose\
operator is known to logicians as Hilbert's
$\varepsilon$-symbol~\cite{leisenring:mathematical-logic}.  Although
this operator appears to introduce the Axiom of Choice to ZF, it
actually adds no new properties of sets.  

\subsection{Functions}

It is customary to define functions to be sets of ordered pairs.  For
example, the {\em reciprocal\/} function that maps every nonzero real
number $r$ to $1/r$ is defined to be the set
 $\{\langle r, 1/r\rangle : r\in\real\backslash\{0\}\}$.
However, it does not matter
how functions are defined.  What we need are the four operators
described in Figure~\ref{fig:functions}.  For reasons discussed below,
we write $f[x]$ instead of the more conventional $f(x)$ to denote the
result of applying the function $f$ to the value $x$.
Every function $f$ has a domain, which is a set denoted ${\bf dom}\;f$.
The set $[S\rightarrow T]$ consists of all functions $f$ such
that  ${\bf dom}\;f=S$ and $f[x]\in T$ for all $x\in S$.
The notation $[x\in S\mapsto e]$ is used to describe a function
explicitly; for example,
 \( [r\in\real\backslash\{0\} \mapsto 1/r] \)
denotes the {\em reciprocal\/} function, whose domain is 
the set $\real\backslash\{0\}$ of nonzero reals.

\begin{figure}[b]
% \renewcommand{\bnf}[1]{\mbox{\small $\langle\mbox{\it #1\/}\rangle$}}
\centering
\begin{minipage}{\textwidth}
\begin{tabbing}
[$f;\;e_{1}\,\mapsto\,e_{2}$]
  \hspace{1em}\= \kill
$f$[$e$]  \>  {\small [Function application]}\\[.5\jot]
{\bf dom} $f$ \> {\small [Domain of the function $f$]}\\[.5\jot]

[$S$ $\rightarrow$ $T$]            
  \> \small [Set of functions with domain $S$ and range a subset of $T$]\\[.5\jot]
[$x \in S$~$\mapsto$\ $\!e$]
  \> \small [Function $f$ such that $f[x]=e$ for $x\in S$]
\end{tabbing}
\end{minipage}

\caption[]{Operators for expressing functions}
\label{fig:functions}
\end{figure}

We now have the operators we need to describe all the functions of
ordinary mathematics.  Consider, for example, the factorial function.
This is the unique function \fact, whose domain is the set \nat\ of
natural numbers, such that $\fact[0]=1$ and
$\fact[n]=n\cdot\fact[n\!-\!1]$, for $n>0$.  Hence, \fact\ equals
 \[ \choose\;f \;:\; 
       f \,=\, [n\in\nat \,\mapsto\, {\bf if\;\,} n = 0 
              {\bf \;\,then\;\,} 1 {\bf \;\,else\;\,} n\cdot f[n\!-\!1]\,]
 \]
We use the following syntax to mean that {\em fact\/} is defined to be
this function.
 \[ {\it fact\/}[n : \nat] \;\;\deq\;\;
   {\bf if\;\,} n = 0 
              {\bf \;\,then\;\,} 1 {\bf \;\,else\;\,} n\cdot 
  {\it fact\/}[n\!-\!1]
\]


\subsection{Operators}

Let us now consider the problem of defining $\len(s)$ to denote the
length of an arbitrary sequence $s$.  We represent a sequence $s$ of
length $n$ by a function whose domain is the set $\{1\ldots n\}$ of
natural numbers from 1 through $n$, letting $s[i]$ represent the
$i^{\rm th}$ element of the sequence.  (We let $\{1\ldots 0\}$ denote
the empty set, so the empty sequence, which has length zero, is the
unique function whose domain is the empty set .)

As a warmup exercise, we define the set $\seq(S)$ of all sequences of
elements in $S$.  An $n$-element sequence in $\seq(S)$ is a function
with domain $\{1\ldots n\}$ and range a subset of $S$.  The set of all
such sequences is denoted by
 $[\{1\ldots n\} \rightarrow S]$, and
$\seq(S)$ is the union of all such sets, for all natural numbers
$n$. Hence, $\seq(S)$ is the set
  $\union \,\{ \,[\{1\ldots n\} \rightarrow S] : n \in \nat \}$.

Now, let us define $\len(s)$.  A sequence of length $n$ is a function
with domain $\{1\ldots n\}$.  Thus, $n$ is the length of a sequence $s$
iff $n$ is a natural number and ${\bf dom}\;s$ equals $\{1\ldots n\}$.
Hence, $\len(s)$ can be defined to equal
  $\choose\; n : (n\in\nat)\land({\bf dom}\;s = \{1\ldots n\})$.

What is \len?  One would like to call it a function and consider
$\len(s)$ to be an instance of function application.  However, the domain of
a function is a set.  If \len\ were a function, its domain would have
to be the collection of all sequences, which is ``too big'' to be a
set.  We must consider \len\ to be an {\em operator}, just like
$\bigcup$.  For any value $v$, the expression $\bigcup v$ denotes a
value, so $(\bigcup v)\in S$ is a formula of ZF\@.  However, $\bigcup$ by
itself does not denote a value, and $\bigcup \in S$ is a meaningless
string of symbols, not a formula of ZF\@.  Similarly, $\len(v)$ denotes a
value, for any value $v$; but $\len$ by itself does not denote a value,
and $\len\in S$ is a syntactically incorrect, meaningless string of
symbols.

We find it helpful to distinguish functions from operators by using
square brackets for function application.  However, this is not
necessary; ordinary parentheses can be used for both.  In a properly
designed formal language, one can determine syntactically whether a
symbol denotes a value or an operator, so $f(x)$ is unambiguous.


\subsection{What is 1/0?}

For any value $v$, the expression $\len(v)$ denotes a value. 
What value is denoted by $\len(\real)$?  By definition, it equals
  $\choose\; n : (n\in\nat)\land({\bf dom}\;\real = \{1\ldots n\})$.
Since \real\ is not a function, we don't know what value is denoted by
the expression ${\bf dom}\;\real$, so we don't know whether it equals
$\{1\ldots n\}$ for any natural number $n$.  Hence, we don't know what
value $\len(\real)$ denotes; perhaps it equals $\sqrt{2}$, perhaps
it doesn't.  More
precisely, the axioms of ZF do not allow us to determine whether the
formula $\len(\real)=\sqrt{2}$ is valid.

Let us switch to a more familiar example.  We might define $x/y$ to equal
$\choose\; r : (r\in\real)\land(r\cdot y=x)$.  Since
there is no $r$ satisfying $(r\in\real)\land(r\cdot 0=1)$,
this definition allows us to say nothing about $1/0$ except that it is
a value.  It might equal $\sqrt{2}$; it might equal $\seq(\real)$.

Elementary school children and programmers
are taught that 1/0 is meaningless, and they are committing
an error by even writing it.  More sophisticated logicians say that 1/0
equals the nonvalue $\bot$, which acts like a virus, turning infected
expressions to $\bot$.  They devise complicated rules to describe how
it spreads---for example, declaring that $(0=1)\lor(0=\bot)$ equals $\bot$, but
$(0=1)\land(0=\bot)$  equals \false.

Instead of calling $1/0$ an error or a nonvalue,
it is much simpler to say that $1/0$ is some value---we just don't
know what value.  Even $1/(\bigcup{\real})$ is a value.  This
causes no problems.  Consider
the formula
 \[ (x\in\real) \land (x\neq 0) \,\implies\, (x\cdot(1/x) = 1)
 \]
It is valid when any value is substituted for $x$.  Substituting
0 for $x$ yields
 \[ (0\in\real) \land (0\neq 0) \,\implies\, (0\cdot(1/0) = 1)
 \]
which is valid regardless of what $1/0$ equals and whether or not
$0\cdot(1/0)$ equals 1, because $0\neq0$ is false.  Substituting
$\bigcup\real$ for $x$ yields
 \[ ((\bigcup\real)\in\real) \land ((\bigcup\real)\neq 0) 
    \,\implies\, ((\bigcup\real)\cdot(1/(\bigcup\real)) = 1)
 \]
which is valid regardless of what $1/(\bigcup\real)$
equals, because $(\bigcup\real)\in\real$ is false.

%try
\subsection{An Example: The Riemann Integral}

To illustrate how to formalize ordinary mathematics in ZF, we define
the Riemann integral of elementary calculus as the limit of
trapezoidal approximations to the (signed) area under the graph of the
function.  Define a {\em partition\/} $p$ of the interval from $a$ to
$b$ to be a monotonic sequence $p[1]$, $\ldots\,$, $p[n]$ of reals
such that $p[1]=a$ and $p[n]=b$.  Approximating the area under the
graph of $f$ between $p[i]$ and $p[i\!+\!1]$ by a trapezoid, such a
partition $p$ yields the following approximation ${\cal S}_{p}f$ to
$\int_{a}^{b}f$.
 \[    \sum_{i=1}^{n-1}\, (p[i\!+\!1] - p[i]) \cdot 
       (\,f[\,p[i]\,] + f[\,p[i\!+\!1]\,]\,) \,/\, 2 
 \] 
Define a partition $p$ to be a {\em $\delta$-partition\/} iff
$|p[i+1]-p[i]| < \delta$, for $i=1,\ldots\,, n\!-\!1$.  The Riemann
integral $\int_{a}^{b}f$ is defined to be the limit of approximations
${\cal S}_{p}f$ for $\delta$-partitions $p$, as $\delta$ goes to zero.
More precisely, $\int_{a}^{b}f$ is the unique number satisfying the
following property: for every $\epsilon>0$ there exists a $\delta>0$
such that $|\int_{a}^{b}f-{\cal S}_{p}f|<\epsilon$ for every
$\delta$-partition $p$.  If no such number exists, then $f$ is not
integrable on the interval from $a$ to $b$, and $\int_{a}^{b}f$ is not
defined.


This definition is formalized in Figure~\ref{fig:integral}, assuming
only the set \real\ of real numbers, the subset \nat\ of naturals, and
the usual arithmetic operations and ordering relations on numbers.
First, the set $\real^{+}$ of positive reals, the absolute value, and
the set $\{m \ldots\, n\}$ are defined.  Then, $\sum\limits_{m}^{n}f$
is defined to equal $\sum\limits_{i=m}^{n}f[i]$.  We consider
$\sum\limits_{m}^{n}f$ to be syntactic sugar for $\sum(f,m)[n]$, where
we have made $\sum(f,m)$ a function with domain \nat\ to permit a
recursive definition.  Next, we define the set ${\cal
P}_{a}^{b}(\delta)$ of all $\delta$-partitions of the interval from
$a$ to $b$, and the approximation ${\cal S}_{p}f$.  (It does not matter
what ${\cal S}_{p}f$ equals if $p$ is not a partition.)
Finally, we define the integral in terms of the operator ${\cal S}$.
Note that the value of $\int_{a}^{b}f$ is unspecified if $f$ is not
integrable on the interval from $a$ to $b$.

Figure~\ref{fig:integral} may not be simple, but its complexity comes
from the mathematical concept it is defining.  The translation of the
ordinary definition into ZF was straightforward.  The major departure
from conventional mathematical notation is in writing
$\sum\limits_{m}^{n}f$ instead of $\sum\limits_{i=m}^{n}f[i]$.  To permit
such notation, we would need some way of indicating in the definition
of $\sum\limits_{i=m}^{n}f[i]$ that $i$ is a bound variable, and that $f$
lies in its scope, but $m$ and $n$ do not.

\begin{figure}
\newcommand{\s}[1]{\hspace*{#1em}}
\centering
\begin{minipage}{\textwidth}
\begin{tabbing}
$\real^{+}$ ~\deq~\ $\{r \in \real : 0 < r\}$\\[1.5\jot]
%
$|r|$  ~\deq~\ {\bf \,if\,} $r < 0$ {\bf \,then\,} $-r$ 
                       {\bf \,else\,} $r$\\[1.5\jot]
%
$\{m \ldots\, n\}$ ~\deq~\ 
          $\{i \in \nat : (m \leq i) \land (i \leq n)\}$
  \\[1.5\jot]
%
$\sum\limits_{m}^{n\,:\,\nat}f$ ~\deq~\ 
  {\bf if}\, $n \leq  m$ \,{\bf then}\, 0 \,{\bf else}\, 
               $f[n]+\sum\limits_{m}^{n-1}f$
  \\[1.5\jot]
%
${\cal P}_{a}^{b}(\delta)$ ~\deq~\ \=
 \( \{\,p \in \seq(\real) : \)\\[.5\jot]
 \> \s{1.5}\( \land\; (p[1] = a) \;\land\; (p[\len(p)] = b) \)\\[.5\jot]
 \> \s{1.5}\( \land\;\forall\, i \in \{1\ldots\,\len(p)\!-\!1\} :\;\) \=
              $\land\;${\bf if}\, $a \leq b$ \= 
                   \,{\bf then}\, \= $p[i] \leq p[i\!+\!1]$\\[.5\jot]
\> \> \>           \,{\bf else} \> $p[i] \geq p[i\!+\!1]$\\[.5\jot]
\> \>         \( \land \;
               |p[i\!+\!1] - p[i]| < \delta     \s{4.5}\}\)
     \\[1.5\jot]
%
${\cal S}_{p}f$ ~\deq~\
$\sum\limits_{1}^{\len(p)-1}[\,i\in\nat\,\mapsto\,(p[i\!+\!1] - p[i]) \cdot 
       (\,f[\,p[i]\,] + f[\,p[i\!+\!1]\,]\,) \,/\, 2\,]
     $\\[1.5\jot]
%
$\int_{a}^{b}f$ ~\deq~\ 
    \choose\ $r$ : 
    \= \( \land\;
           r \in \real\)\\
    \> \( \land\;\begin{array}[t]{@{}l@{}}
         \forall\, \epsilon \in \real^{+} :\, 
            \exists\, \delta \in \real^{+} : 
              \forall\, 
                 p \in {\cal P}_{a}^{b}(\delta) :
                |\, r - {\cal S}_{p}f\, | < \epsilon
            \end{array} \)
\end{tabbing}
\end{minipage}
\caption{The definition of the Riemann integral.}
\label{fig:integral}
\end{figure}

%try

\subsection{Further Remarks} 

In ordinary, informal mathematics, the meaning of a symbol depends on
its context.  The symbol \X\ in a text on set theory denotes the
Cartesian product, while in an advanced calculus text it may denote the
product of vectors in three-space.  The symbol $x$ may be used to
denote different values in different parts of a proof.  A complete
formal language for mathematics would include hierarchically structured
contexts, and definitions that apply only within a specified context.
This structuring is independent of whether or not one uses types.


Mathematicians sometimes use the same symbol to denote different things
within a single context.  An advanced calculus text might let \X\
denote both Cartesian product and vector product, hoping the reader
will figure out that $x\X y\in S\X T$ asserts that the vector product
$x\X y$ is in the Cartesian product $S\X T$.  When the rules for
disambiguating the use of a symbol can be stated precisely, they
can be defined formally.  For example, 
$a\X b$ can be defined to equal 
 ${\bf if\;\,}a\in\real\X\real\X\real{\bf \,\;then\;}\ldots
     {\bf \;else\;}\ldots$\,.
However, it is probably better to write 
$x\mbox{\boldmath \X} y\in S\X T$ than to explain how to
distinguish between two different uses of \X.


\section{Types}

We have never found a rigorous, universally accepted definition of a
type.  However, we can define type correctness.
We first define a {\em class\/} to be a collection of values that
satisfies some property expressible in ZF\@.  For example, the
collection of all finite sequences is a class, since a value $s$ is a
finite sequence iff it satisfies the ZF formula
 $\exists\,S : s\in\seq(S)$.
In a typed system, every operator has a domain that is a class.  
The domain of operator \len\ would be the class of all finite
sequences.  The function-application operator,
which maps the pair $\langle f,\,x\rangle$ to the value $f[x]$,
has as its domain 
the class of all $\langle f,\,x\rangle$ such that $x\in{\bf dom}\;f$.
A
formula is {\em type correct\/} iff its validity does not depend on the
result of applying an operator to any argument not in its domain.
Thus, 
% $(1=0)\implies (7=\len(\real))$ 
 $(\exists\, x\in\real : x^{2}<0)\implies (7=\len(\real))$ 
is type correct even
though \real\ is not in the domain of \len, since the formula's validity
does not depend on the value of $\len(\real)$.

Type correctness is a reasonable requirement for a formula.  However,
type systems generally require a formula to be {\em type checkable},
meaning that a type-checking algorithm can determine that the formula
is type correct.  To make type checking easy, most typed languages allow
only a restricted form of classes to be used as types, and have
conservative rules for type checkability.  A type correct formula need
not be type checkable, and it may have to be re-expressed in a more
complicated fashion to appease the type checker.  More complex type
systems can provide more expressive power, at the cost of making the
language more complicated.  But, any language with a decidable
type-checking procedure must disallow some type-correct formulas.

Conventional wisdom asserts that type checking catches enough errors in
programs to be worth the inconvenience caused by 
prohibiting some type-correct programs.  We do not dispute this
assertion.  But, mathematics is not programming.  Programs operate on
simple, finite data structures---not on Riemann-integrable functions on
the real line.  The complexity introduced by working around the
restrictions of a type system is a potential source of error.  In the
realm of mathematics, type checking could cause more errors than it
catches.

Our experience has been that, when writing a rigorous proof of a
theorem, one quickly finds any error in its statement that could be
caught by a type checker.  There are applications in which theorems
are written (perhaps implicitly) but not proved---for example,
specifying complex systems.  Type checking can catch errors in these
applications.  However, type checking need not imply the constraints
of a type system.  Type correctness can be expressed as a theorem in
ZF\@.  For example, type correctness of the definition of \len\ is
expressed by the formula
 \( \forall\, S:\forall\, s\in\seq(S) : \len(s)\in\nat
 \).
Type checking does not require a typed language.  One can assert type
correctness with theorems, and rename the type checker to be an
automatic theorem prover.  A language could even provide a syntax for
writing those theorems as if they were type declarations---for example,
a ``typed'' definition of \len\ might be written
  \[ \len(s : \seq({\bf Any})) : \nat \;\;\deq\;\;
 \choose\; n : (n\in\nat)\land({\bf dom}\;s = \{1\ldots n\})
%\ldots
  \]
But unlike type declarations, failure of the theorem prover (type
checker) to verify the type-correctness theorem asserted by such a
definition need not force one to rewrite the definition.  The theorem
could be proved by other methods, or simply accepted without proof.


\section{Conclusion}

Although types may be good for programming languages, we claim that
formal mathematics should employ an untyped language.  We also claim
that specification should be more like mathematics than like
programming.  A specification language should encourage an abstract
description of what a program or system is supposed to do, not a
low-level description of how it behaves.  Everything we have said about
the unsuitability of types for mathematical formulas applies to
specifications.

It is sometimes argued that, because programming languages use types,
a language for specifying programs should also be typed.  However, an
untyped formalism such as ZF is likely to be better than a typed one
for describing a different type system.  A typed specification
language would be convenient only for specifying programs written in a
language with the same type system.  But, verifying that a program
implements a specification that uses the same type system is not
likely to catch an error caused by misunderstanding some subtle
feature of the type system.  We do not find Pascal to be a good
language for specifying Pascal programs.

It should be obvious that theorem proving is mathematics, not
programming.  Yet, most mechanical theorem provers use a typed
language, making it harder to express mathematics.  These provers are
better at reasoning about types than at reasoning about sets, the most
fundamental data type of mathematics.  Given the type declarations
 $m,\, n : \nat$ and $+ : \nat\X\nat\rightarrow\nat$,
a theorem prover will immediately deduce that $m+n:\nat$.  But, it can
take considerable effort to convince the prover that $m\in\nat$,
$n\in\nat$, and $+\in[\nat\X\nat\rightarrow\nat]$ imply $m+n\in\nat$
(where $m+n$ means $+[\langle m,\,n\rangle]\,$).  Any algorithm for
deducing the types of expressions provides a method for deducing facts
about set membership.  Sets are a more natural choice than types as the
basis for a general-purpose theorem prover.

We have found that most computer scientists have an unreasonable
attachment to types.  They are suspicious of any attempt to eliminate
types, and many will refuse to believe that the brief outline of ZF
presented here can be made completely formal.  ZF serves as the
foundation for a complete specification language, with a precise
formal semantics, that will be described elsewhere.  Here, we can only
assure the reader that mathematicians have gotten along quite well for
two thousand years without types, and they still can today.


\section*{Acknowledgements}

I have profited from comments on an earlier version by Mike Gordon,
Peter Hancock, James Horning, Heiko Krumm, and Peter Ladkin.

%\bibliographystyle{plain}
%\bibliography{mybib}
\begin{thebibliography}{1}

\bibitem{leisenring:mathematical-logic}
A.~C. Leisenring.
\newblock {\em Mathematical Logic and Hilbert's $\varepsilon$-Symbol}.
\newblock Gordon and Breach, New York, 1969.

\bibitem{shoenfield:axioms}
J.~R. Shoenfield.
\newblock The axioms of set theory.
\newblock In Jon Barwise, editor, {\em Handbook of Mathematical Logic},
  chapter~B1, pages 317--344. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1977.

\end{thebibliography}

\end{document}

