# Intrinsic and extrinsic encodings

It often comes to pass that you have a judgement and a second judgement which picks out some of the subjects of the first. For instance, terms and values, or terms and well-typed terms, or finite maps and well-formed finite maps (e.g. maps without duplicate keys). Depending on what you're doing, you may then have a choice as to whether to encode the judgements *intrinsically* or *extrinsically*.

In an extrinsic encoding, the second judgement is represented as a refinement of the first: a type family which is indexed by the type family representing the first judgement. For example, the simply-typed lambda calculus, extrinsically:

tm : type. lam : (tm -> tm) -> tm. app : tm -> tm -> tm. tp : type. arr : tp -> tp -> tp. of : tm -> tp -> type. of-lam : ({x:tm}{d:of x T} of (B x) T') -> of (lam B) (arr T T'). of-app : of M' (arr T T') -> of M T -> of (app M' M) T'.

In an intrinsic encoding, the second judgement is rolled into the definition of the first; there is no representation of subjects of the first judgement which are not subjects of the second. For example, the simply-typed lambda calculus, intrinsically:

tp : type. arr : tp -> tp -> tp. tm : tp -> type. lam : (tm T -> tm T') -> tm (arr T T'). app : tm (arr T T') -> tm T -> tm T'.

Strictly speaking this is not just a different encoding; it adequately encodes only the typing judgement, since there are ill-typed terms which can be written down in the previous signature but not in this one.

You may wish to work with both judgements (for instance, terms and values). In that case you have the choice of representing values extrinsically, as a judgement indexed by terms, or intrinsically, as a separate judgement. Extrinsically:

tm : type. lam : (tm -> tm) -> tm. app : tm -> tm -> tm. val : tm -> type. val-lam : val (lam B).

Intrinsically:

tm : type. val : type. lam : (val -> tm) -> val. app : tm -> tm -> tm. inj : val -> tm.

In this representation values must be explicitly injected into terms with `inj`. (Note that taking `val` as argument to the body of `lam` makes the language call-by-value.) An advantage of the intrinsic encoding is that you need only pass around a single `val` derivation to operate on values, while in the extrinsic encoding you must pass both a `tm` and a `value`. A disadvantage is that you have to deal with the term/value distinction everywhere you work with terms.

Another possibility is to have a completely separate secondary judgement and inject its subjects into the primary judgement via a metatheorem rather than a constructor:

tm : type. lam : (tm -> tm) -> tm. app : tm -> tm -> tm. val : type. val-lam : (tm -> tm) -> val.

As a final example, consider finite maps. On paper you typically work with finite maps which are implicitly well-defined (they have at most one binding for a key). To encode them as LF terms in Twelf you have the choice of an extrinsic encoding, in which there is a separate well-formedness judgement, or an intrinsic one, in which only well-formed maps can be written down. Extrinsically:

key : type. % pretend that key and value have some inhabitants value : type. map : type. empty : map. bind : map -> key -> value -> map. key-neq : key -> key -> type. % holds if keys are not equal key-not-in-map : key -> map -> type. - : key-not-in-map K empty. - : key-not-in-map K (bind M K' V) <- key-neq K K' <- key-not-in-map K M. wf-map : map -> type. - : wf-map empty. - : wf-map (bind M K V) <- key-not-in-map K M <- wf-map M.

Intrinsically:

key : type. % pretend that key and value have some inhabitants value : type. map : type. key-neq : key -> key -> type. % holds if keys are not equal empty : map. key-not-in-map : key -> map -> type. bind : {M : map} {K : key} value -> key-not-in-map K M -> map. - : key-not-in-map K empty. - : key-not-in-map K (bind M K' V _) <- key-neq K K' <- key-not-in-map K M.

Here the extrinsic encoding has the advantage that you need not prove that well-formedness is maintained as you go (or even maintain it), which may save a lot of work. The intrinsic encoding has the advantage that since only well-formed maps can be written down, you never need to prove that a type-family maintains well-formedness as an invariant, which may save a lot of work.

For an example of an intrinsic encoding, see CPS conversion, where the distinction between values and expressions is encoded intrinsically, and where all terms are manifestly well-typed.