Without K

The option --without-K adds some restrictions to Agda’s typechecking algorithm in order to ensure compatability with versions of type theory that do not support UIP (uniqueness of identity proofs), such as HoTT (homotopy type theory).

The option --with-K can be used to override a global --without-K in a file, by adding a pragma {-# OPTIONS --with-K #-}. This option is enabled by default.

Note

Prior to Agda 2.6.3, the --cubical-compatible flag did not exist, and --without-K also implied the (internal) generation of Cubical Agda-specific code. See Cubical compatible for the specifics, and #5843 <https://github.com/agda/agda/issues/5843&gt; for the rationale.

Note

When –without-K is used, it is not safe to postulate erased univalence: the theory is perhaps consistent, but one can get incorrect results at run-time. You should use the Cubical compatible flag instead. See #4784 <https://github.com/agda/agda/issues/4784&gt; for more details on this restriction.

Restrictions on pattern matching

When the option --without-K is enabled, then Agda only accepts certain case splits. More specifically, the unification algorithm for checking case splits cannot make use of the deletion rule to solve equations of the form x = x.

For example, the obvious implementation of the K rule is not accepted:

  1. K : {A : Set} {x : A} (P : x ≡ x → Set) →
  2.     P refl → (x≡x : x ≡ x) → P x≡x
  3. K P p refl = p

Pattern matching with the constructor refl on the argument x≡x causes x to be unified with x, which fails because the deletion rule cannot be used when --without-K is enabled.

On the other hand, the obvious implementation of the J rule is accepted:

  1. J : {A : Set} (P : (x y : A) → x ≡ y → Set) →
  2.     ((x : A) → P x x refl) → (x y : A) (x≡y : x ≡ y) → P x y x≡y
  3. J P p x .x refl = p x

Pattern matching with the constructor refl on the argument x≡y causes x to be unified with y. The same applies to Christine Paulin-Mohring’s version of the J rule:

  1. J′ : {A : Set} {x : A} (P : (y : A) → x ≡ y → Set) →
  2.      P x refl → (y : A) (x≡y : x ≡ y) → P y x≡y
  3. J′ P p ._ refl = p

For more details, see Jesper Cockx’s PhD thesis Dependent Pattern Matching and Proof-Relevant Unification [Cockx (2017)].

Restrictions on termination checking

When --without-K is enabled, Agda’s termination checker restricts structural descent to arguments ending in data types or Size. Likewise, guardedness is only tracked when result type is data or record type:

  1. data ⊥ : Set where
  3. mutual
  4.   data WOne : Set where wrap : FOne → WOne
  5.   FOne = ⊥ → WOne
  7. postulate iso : WOne ≡ FOne
  9. noo : (X : Set) → (WOne ≡ X) → X → ⊥
  10. noo .WOne refl (wrap f) = noo FOne iso f

noo is rejected since at type X the structural descent f < wrap f is discounted --without-K:

  1. data Pandora : Set where
  2.   C : ∞ ⊥ → Pandora
  4. postulate foo : ⊥ ≡ Pandora
  6. loop : (A : Set) → A ≡ Pandora → A
  7. loop .Pandora refl = C (♯ (loop ⊥ foo))

loop is rejected since guardedness is not tracked at type A --without-K.

See issues #1023, #1264, #1292.

Restrictions on universe levels

When --without-K is enabled, some indexed datatypes must be defined in a higher universe level. In particular, the types of all indices should fit in the sort of the datatype.

For example, usually (i.e. --with-K) Agda allows the following definition of equality:

  1. data _≡₀_ {ℓ} {A : Set ℓ} (x : A) : A → Set where
  2.   refl : x ≡₀ x

However, with --without-K it must be defined at a higher universe level:

  1. data _≡′_ {ℓ} {A : Set ℓ} : A → A → Set ℓ where
  2.   refl : {x : A} → x ≡′ x