Mark Spezzano mark.spezzano at chariot.net.au writes:
Does anyone know what Hom stands for?
'Hom' stands for 'homomorphism' --a way of changing (morphism)
between two structures while keeping some information the same (homo-).
Any algebra text will define morphisms aplenty --homomorphisms,
On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 09:16:03 -0800, Creighton Hogg wrote:
2010/2/2 Álvaro García Pérez agar...@babel.ls.fi.upm.es
You may try Pierce's Basic Category Theory for Computer Scientists or
Awodey's Category Theory, whose style is rather introductory. Both of them
(I think) have a chapter about
On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 01:38:08 +0900
Benjamin L. Russell dekudekup...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 09:16:03 -0800, Creighton Hogg wrote:
2010/2/2 Álvaro García Pérez agar...@babel.ls.fi.upm.es
You may try Pierce's Basic Category Theory for Computer
Scientists or Awodey's
Mark Spezzano mark.spezzano at chariot.net.au writes:
Maybe there are books on Discrete maths or Algebra or Set Theory that deal
more with Hom Sets and Hom Functions?
Googling haskell category theory I got:
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Haskell/Category_theory
On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 00:52:41 -0500, Galchin, Vasili
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
Prof. Harold Simmons' tutorial IMO are like a Russian matroshka doll ...
first layer is for newbie ... inner layers require more sophistication. IMO
a very subtle writer ... I have every book imaginable on cat
On 14/08/05, Carl Marks id2359 at yahoo.com wrote:
Is there any text/article which makes precise/rigorous/explicit
the connection between the category theoretic definition of
monad with the haskell implementation?
I did try to do this in my (rejected) paper A monadic
interpretation of tactics
Michael Vanier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in article [EMAIL PROTECTED] in
gmane.comp.lang.haskell.cafe:
Basically, though, the Haskell implementation _is_ the category theoretic
definition of monad, with bind/return used instead of (f)map/join/return as
described below.
Doesn't the Haskell
On 22/08/05, Chung-chieh Shan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael Vanier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in article [EMAIL PROTECTED] in
gmane.comp.lang.haskell.cafe:
Basically, though, the Haskell implementation _is_ the category theoretic
definition of monad, with bind/return used instead of
On 15-Oct-1998, Hans Aberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 17:25 +1000 98/10/15, David Glen JEFFERY wrote:
Does something like this exist? FWIW, I'm using Hugs 1.4
I gather that "FWIW" is yet another SSMA; what does it mean?
For What It's Worth. Okay... I'll bite. What's SSMA?
Anyhow, for
Alan Wood:
...
On another point ... I assume *someone* out there must have re-written the ML
code from Rydeheard and Burstall's 'Computational Category Theroy' in Haskell -
even if only partially. If you have, I'd welcome a copy of the code.
Alan
--
Dr A.M. Wood
Having only recently learned to use Monads and appreciate their
utility, I am encountering new category-theoretic material in reading
about arrows in Jansson and Jeuring's Polytypic Compact Printing and
Parsing paper.
It strikes me that I should just get the basics under my belt rather than
On 14-Oct-1998, S. Alexander Jacobson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Having only recently learned to use Monads and appreciate their
utility, I am encountering new category-theoretic material in reading
about arrows in Jansson and Jeuring's Polytypic Compact Printing and
Parsing paper.
It
On October 14 (16:33 -0400), S. Alexander Jacobson wrote with possible deletions:
| Having only recently learned to use Monads and appreciate their
| utility, I am encountering new category-theoretic material in reading
| about arrows in Jansson and Jeuring's Polytypic Compact Printing and
|
At 17:25 +1000 98/10/15, David Glen JEFFERY wrote:
Does something like this exist? FWIW, I'm using Hugs 1.4
I gather that "FWIW" is yet another SSMA; what does it mean?
Hans Aberg
* Email: Hans Aberg mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Home Page:
At 18:27 +0900 98/10/15, Frank Christoph wrote:
I encourage you to acquire some familiarity with a related field first, e.g.,
universal algebra, topology or even type theory or logic, since category
theory is very abstract stuff ("abstract nonsense" is a commonly cited
description; of course,
On 15-Oct-1998, Hans Aberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I gather that "FWIW" is yet another SSMA; what does it mean?
At 01:22 +1000 98/10/16, David Glen JEFFERY wrote:
For What It's Worth. Okay... I'll bite. What's SSMA?
some such meaningless acronym
Hans Aberg
*
Re: category theory --- S. Alexander Jacobson wrote:
| What is a good place to start learning the
| basics of category theory, monads, and algebra (as in algebraic types not
| high school math) for use in a programming context? Books? Papers?
| Websites?
I've found most attractive account
17 matches
Mail list logo
