Iavor S. Diatchki wrote:
Ron de Bruijn wrote:
I am pretty sure, that = is to monads what * is to
for example natural numbers, but I don't know what the
inverse of = is. And I can't really find it anywhere
on the web(papers, websites, not a single sole does
mention it.
this is not quie correct.
--- Iavor S. Diatchki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
hi ron,
here are the relations between the two formulations
of monads:
(using haskell notation)
map f m = m = (return . f)
join m = m = id
m = f = join (fmap f m)
there are quite a few general concepts that you need
snip
?! I found out what a group is:
?! A group is a monoid each of whose elements is
?! invertible.
?!
OK.
?! Only I still find it weird that join is called a
?! multiplication, because according to the definition of
?! multiplication, there should be an inverse. I think,
No, it ain't.
If
At 08:20 09/06/04 -0700, Ron de Bruijn wrote:
Only I still find it weird that join is called a
multiplication, because according to the definition of
multiplication, there should be an inverse.
For real or rational numbers, maybe.
But also think about Integers, or matrices.
[ 1 2 ] * [ 3 ] = [
Ralf,
thanks for your time to look into the HList paper.
It's quite good. It reminds me the quirks Alexandrescu does in his Modern
C++ Design or here
http://osl.iu.edu/~tveldhui/papers/Template-Metaprograms/meta-art.html .
Since type system allows implementation of natural arithmetic, do you
Mike Aizatsky wrote:
It's quite good. It reminds me the quirks Alexandrescu does in his Modern
C++ Design or here
http://osl.iu.edu/~tveldhui/papers/Template-Metaprograms/meta-art.html .
Since type system allows implementation of natural arithmetic, do you know,
is it Turing-complete?
Yes, C.
Hello again,
I have thought a while about morphisms and although I
had written down in my paper that a functor and also a
natural transformation are also morphisms, but in a
different category, I now am not sure anymore of this.
If you see everything(objects and morphisms) as dots
and arrows,
On 10/06/2004, at 3:29 AM, Mike Aizatsky wrote:
thanks for your time to look into the HList paper.
It's quite good. It reminds me the quirks Alexandrescu does in his
Modern
C++ Design or here
http://osl.iu.edu/~tveldhui/papers/Template-Metaprograms/meta-art.html
.
Since type system allows
G'day all.
Quoting Ron de Bruijn [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I have thought a while about morphisms and although I
had written down in my paper that a functor and also a
natural transformation are also morphisms, but in a
different category, I now am not sure anymore of this.
It's true. In
