[Haskell-cafe] Re: [Haskell] (.) . (.)

[Brian Hulley]

Jon Fairbairn wrote:
> On 2006-05-29 at 19:03BST "Brian Hulley" wrote:
>> Dominic Steinitz wrote:
>
>> I think it's fascinating that already with ((.).(.)) there
>> is something that can be used practically and proved
>> equivalent to something easily comprehensible,
>
> Well, it is compose composed with compose, so you can start
> from the idea that it's going to do something to do with
> composition and twoness...
>
>> Certainly it shows how much there is still to explore in
>> terms of the inner landscape of lambda calculus.
>
> You've read
>
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0444875085/qid=1148927765/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_0_1/203-8973698-1827131
>
> I presume? ;-) It's a bestseller...

I must admit I haven't read it...
Are you saying that this book contains the knowledge I'd need to form such 
concepts as to be able to directly comprehend (.).(.)  as easily as \f g a 
b -> f(g a b) ?
 (since I already know how to manually convert one to the other by a 
sequence of substitutions but this knowledge alone doesn't help)

If so, then I'll buy it...

Thanks, Brian.


-- 
Logic empowers us and Love gives us purpose.
Yet still phantoms restless for eras long past,
congealed in the present in unthought forms,
strive mightily unseen to destroy us.

http://www.metamilk.com