andrewcoppin at btinternet.com
Mon Jul 2 14:33:13 EDT 2007
Dan Piponi wrote:
> On 7/2/07, Andrew Coppin <andrewcoppin at btinternet.com> wrote:
>> What were monads like before they became a Haskell language construct?
>> Is Haskell's idea of a "monad" actually anywhere close to the original
>> mathematical formalism?
> It's as close to a mathematician's notion of a monad as Haskell's
> types and functions are to the objects and arrows of category theory.
Right. So it's a pretty close correspondence.
"Monads are important in the theory of pairs of adjoint functors. They
can be viewed as monoid objects in a category of endofunctors (hence the
name) and they generalize closure operators on posets to arbitrary
*cried softly in the corner*
I knew asking questions about theoretical mathematics probably wasn't a
> Knowing that you were about to ask this question I told my past self
> by tachyon express and wrote up on it this weekend:
Heh. *I* would have just told my past self next week's lottery numbers...
More information about the Haskell-Cafe