Conor McBride wrote:
Hi all
On 9 Jul 2007, at 06:42, Thomas Conway wrote:
I don't know if you saw the following linked off /.
http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/13339/53/
[..]
The basic claim appears to be that discrete mathematics is a bad
foundation for computer science. I suspect
Hi Derek
On 16 Jul 2007, at 02:48, Derek Elkins wrote:
On Mon, 2007-07-16 at 02:29 +0100, Conor McBride wrote:
Hi
data{-codata-} Punter = Speak String (String - Punter)
[..]
data{-codata-} Stream x = x : (Stream x)
cafe :: Punter - (String - Punter) - Stream (String, String)
cafe
Hi
Whoops! Only just spotted this. Many apologies.
On 10 Jul 2007, at 20:35, Creighton Hogg wrote:
Me:
No, an
operating system is supposed to remain responsive. And that's what
total coprograms do.
I'm sorry, but can you expand a little further on this? I guess I
don't understand
On Mon, 2007-07-16 at 02:29 +0100, Conor McBride wrote:
Hi
Whoops! Only just spotted this. Many apologies.
On 10 Jul 2007, at 20:35, Creighton Hogg wrote:
Me:
No, an
operating system is supposed to remain responsive. And that's what
total coprograms do.
I'm sorry, but can
On 11/07/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You mean nstructed.
Now if you'l excuse me, I'm off to write some de.
Ah, everyone's a median ;-)
Cheers,
Dougal.
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 08:08:52PM +0100, Andrew Coppin wrote:
Erm... Wait a sec... coroutines, comonads, coprograms, codata... what in
the name of goodness does co actually *mean* anyway??
Nothing.
When mathematicians find a new thing completely unlike an OldThing, but
related by some
On 7/9/07, Dan Piponi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/8/07, Thomas Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The basic claim appears to be that discrete mathematics is a bad
foundation for computer science. I suspect the subscribers to this
list would beg to disagree.
Wearing my tin foil hat for the
On 7/9/07, Conor McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all
On 9 Jul 2007, at 06:42, Thomas Conway wrote:
I don't know if you saw the following linked off /.
http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/13339/53/
[..]
The basic claim appears to be that discrete mathematics is a bad
foundation
On 7/10/07, Creighton Hogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Okay Mr. Piponi, as a math geek I can't let that comment about the web slide
without further explanation. Is it just the idea that coalgebras can
capture the idea of side affects (a - F a) or is there something more
specific that you're
Dan Piponi wrote:
First a quick bit of background on algebras.
If F is a functor, an F-algebra is an arrow FX-X. For example if we
choose FX = 1+X+X^2 (using + to mean disjoint union) then an F-algebra
is a function 1+X+X^2-X. The 1-X part just picks out a constant, the
image of 1. The X^2-X
Stefan O'Rear wrote:
On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 08:08:52PM +0100, Andrew Coppin wrote:
Erm... Wait a sec... coroutines, comonads, coprograms, codata... what in
the name of goodness does co actually *mean* anyway??
Nothing.
When mathematicians find a new thing completely unlike an
On 7/10/07, Andrew Coppin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stefan O'Rear wrote:
On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 08:08:52PM +0100, Andrew Coppin wrote:
Erm... Wait a sec... coroutines, comonads, coprograms, codata... what in
the name of goodness does co actually *mean* anyway??
Nothing.
When mathematicians
Dan Piponi wrote:
(I got lost somewhere with the levels of quotation there...)
It's more specific than this. Coalgebra, cohomology, codata, comonads
and so on derive their name from the fact that they can be described
using category theory. In category theory you draw lots of diagrams
with
On 7/10/07, Andrew Coppin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sounds a lot like the Boolean duality principle.
That is, in fact, very closely related.
--
Dan
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
G'day all.
Quoting Stefan O'Rear [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Data can only be constructed using constructors, but can be
deconstructed [...]
You mean nstructed.
Now if you'l excuse me, I'm off to write some de.
Cheers,
Andrew Bromage
___
Haskell-Cafe
On Monday 09 July 2007 17:42, Thomas Conway wrote:
I don't know if you saw the following linked off /.
http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/13339/53/
An amazon link for the book is here:
http://www.amazon.com/Computer-Science-Reconsidered-Invocation-Expression/d
p/0471798142
The basic
On 7/9/07, Daniel McAllansmith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wouldn't want to comment on the validity of his claim, maybe he's wrong, or
maybe he's... well, anyway... what I will say is I got a chuckle out of
the 'Citations' that Amazon lists.
As amusing as that thought is, it seems that this is
It looks like Amazon's citation database is mistakenly using the index
for the book _Beating Depression_ by John Rush (Toronto: John Wiley
Sons, Canada Ltd., 1983).
Yes it is so. Amazon.com mistakenly thinks that the given book is a
new edition of the book titled beating depression.
Amazon
Hi all
On 9 Jul 2007, at 06:42, Thomas Conway wrote:
I don't know if you saw the following linked off /.
http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/13339/53/
[..]
The basic claim appears to be that discrete mathematics is a bad
foundation for computer science. I suspect the subscribers to this
On 15:42 Mon 09 Jul , Thomas Conway wrote:
I don't know if you saw the following linked off /.
http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/13339/53/
I read that earlier and his comments, such as
This concept of 'process expression' is, he says, a common thread
running through the various
drtomc:
I don't know if you saw the following linked off /.
http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/13339/53/
An amazon link for the book is here:
http://www.amazon.com/Computer-Science-Reconsidered-Invocation-Expression/dp/0471798142
The basic claim appears to be that discrete
21 matches
Mail list logo
