On Tuesday 08 Nov 2011 18:59:04 Bill Page wrote: > Martin, > > I think precise definitions are essential to make any progress in > understanding this issue. My preference is that these definitions > should come from category theory. In this case, specifically the > definition of monad in category theory. Prior to that is the > definition of functor in category theory. Before asking about monads, > I think it is important first to ask about functors. The point of my > last message is that 'List' is a functor. I hope that was clear. > > Regards, > Bill Page.
But we are trying to understand how to implement these category theory concepts in various computer languages. Are you now saying that all these language concepts have now to be redefined in category theory terms? Your last message defined List as a domain constructor, now you are defining it: 'List' is a functor, I only point out this inconsistency to point out that there is a limit to precision in natural language and if you trying to over prescribe the language it has the effect of narrowing the scope of the discussion and missing possible alternatives. Martin -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "FriCAS - computer algebra system" group. To post to this group, send email to fricas-devel@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to fricas-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/fricas-devel?hl=en.
