[Haskell-cafe] From monads to monoids in a small category

[Alberto G. Corona]

Moreover, `m a`  is  'a' plus some  terminal element , for example
Nothing, [], Left _  etc, So a morphism (a -> m a)   contains all the
morphisms of (m a -> m a).

2012/9/5 Alberto G. Corona <agocorona at gmail.com>:
> Alexander,
>
>
> In my post (excuses for my dyslexia)  I try to demonstrate that  the
> codomain (m a), from the point of view of C. Theory,  can be seen as
> 'a' plus, optionally, some additional element,  so  a monadic morphism
> (a -> m a) is part of a endofunctor in (m a -> m a)
>
> When considering the concept of arrow from category theory,  (not the
> concept of function), a point in the domain can "send" more than one
> arrow to the codomain, while a function do not.  I think that this is
> the most interesting part of the interpretation, if I´m right.
>
> About this, I found this article revealing:
>
> http://cdsmith.wordpress.com/2012/04/18/why-do-monads-matter/
>
> Therefore, codomains of (a -> m a) which are containers with multiple
> a elements can be considered as multi-arrow morphisms from 'a' to 'a'
> with the optional addition of some special elements that denote
> special conditions.
>
>
> For example
>
> (a -> [a])
>
> May be considered as the general signature of the morphisms from the
> set 'a' to the set  ('a' + [])
>
> So a monadic transformation  (a -> [a])  can be considered as a point
> transformation of a endofunctor within the set (a + []).
>
>
> Alberto
>
>
> 2012/9/5 Alexander Solla <alex.solla at gmail.com>:
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Alexander Solla <alex.solla at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 3:39 AM, Alberto G. Corona <agocorona at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Monads are monoids in the category of endofunctors"
>>>>
>>>> This Monoid instance for the endofunctors of the set of all  elements
>>>> of (m a)   typematch in Haskell with FlexibleInstances:
>>>>
>>>> instance Monad m => Monoid  (a -> m a) where
>>>>    mappend = (>=>)   -- kleisly operator
>>>>    mempty  = return
>>>
>>>
>>> The objects of a Kliesli category for a monad m aren't endofunctors.  You
>>> want something like:
>>>
>>> instance Monad m => Monoid (m a -> m (m a)) where ...
>>>
>>> /These/ are endofunctors, in virtue of join transforming an m (m a) into
>>> an (m a).
>>
>>
>> Actually, even these aren't endofunctors, for a similar reason that :  you
>> "really" want something like
>>
>> instance Monad m => Monoid (m a -> m a) where
>>     mempty = id
>>     mappend = undefined -- exercise left to the reader
>>
>> (i.e., you want to do plumbing through the Eilenberg-Moore category for a
>> monad, instead of the Kliesli category for a monad -- my last message
>> exposes the kind of plumping you want, but not the right types.)