David House wrote:
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Haskell/Category_theory
I'd love comments from newcomers and experts alike regarding my
approach, the content, improvements and so on. Of course, it's on the
wikibook, so if you have anything to add (that's not _too_ substantial
otherwise I'd recommend discussion first) then go ahead.
Hi David,
In the introduction you say that Set is the category of all sets with
morphisms as standard functions and composition as standard function
composition.
But in the second exercise in the intro it's clear that function composition
is not associative. Therefore surely this means everything based on function
composition can't be a category?
Also, why does this exercise contain redundant morphisms (I hope I'm not
spoiling it for anyone by saying this or perhaps I've just totally
misunderstood everything)?
Thanks, Brian.
--
http://www.metamilk.com
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
