There was a conversation on the cafe about this last month. Check out: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/haskell-cafe/tBO2AowUvMY
Category theory is a "language" of composition. In "logical" terms, different categories are models of different axioms. That said, a "rich enough" category is suitable for encoding the "whole" of category theory (as a language -- not necessarily as a model containing sub-models. Typing introduces some complications, since types meant to help us escape logical paradoxes like Russell's by introducing a notion of "foundedness") Hask is the category whose objects are types and whose morphisms are Haskell functions. Hask is a very rich category, and is suitable for encoding a lot (but not all) of category theory. As far as I know, the actual boundary is as yet unknown. On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 4:15 AM, Alfredo Di Napoli < alfredo.dinap...@gmail.com> wrote: > Morning Cafe, > > I'm planning to do a series of write-ups about Category Theory, to publish > them on the company's blog I'm currently employed. > I'm not a CT expert, but since the best way to learn something is to > explain it to others, I want to take a shot :) > In my mind I will structure the posts following Awodey's book, but I'm > wondering how can I make my posts a little more "real world". > I always read about the "Hask category", which seems to be the "bootstrap" > of the whole logic behind Haskell. Can you please give my > materials/papers/links/blogs to the Hask category and briefly explain me > how it relates to Category Theory and Haskell itself? > > I hope my question is clear enough, in case is not, I'll restate :P > > Cheers, > A. > > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe > >
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe