We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
I discuss problems with Martin-Löf’s distinction between analytic and synthetic judgments in constructive type theory and propose a revision of his views. I maintain that a judgment is analytic when its correctness follows exclusively from the evaluation of the expressions occurring in it. I argue that Martin-Löf’s claim that all judgments of the forms 
$a : A$ and 
$a = b : A$ are analytic is unfounded. As I shall show, when A evaluates to a dependent function type 
$(x : B) \to C$, all judgments of these forms fail to be analytic and therefore end up as synthetic. Going beyond the scope of Martin-Löf’s original distinction, I also argue that all hypothetical judgments are synthetic and show how the analytic–synthetic distinction reworked here is capable of accommodating judgments of the forms 
$A \> \mathsf {type}$ and 
$A = B \> \mathsf {type}$ as well. Finally, I consider and reject an alternative account of analyticity as decidability and assess Martin-Löf’s position on the analytic grounding of synthetic judgments.
