On Sat, 4 Aug 2012, Clark Gaebel <cgae...@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
As far as I know, you can't check "equivalence" of _|_. Since Haskell uses
_|_ to represent a nonterminating computation, this would be
synonymouswith solving the halting
problem.
Ah, thanks. I will attempt to think about this.
oo--JS.
On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Jay Sulzberger <j...@panix.com> wrote:
On Sat, 4 Aug 2012, Clark Gaebel <cgae...@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
Yes.
Thank you!
Further, if you want:
Let us have two types s and t. Let _|_^s be the_|_ for type s,
and let _|_^t be the _|_ for type t.
For which famous equivalences of the Haskell System are these two
_|_ objects equivalent?
oo--JS.
On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Jay Sulzberger <j...@panix.com> wrote:
On Sat, 4 Aug 2012, Jake McArthur <jake.mcart...@gmail.com> wrote:
I feel like this thread is kind of surreal. Knight Capital's mistake
was to use imperative programming styles? An entire industry is
suffering because they haven't universally applied category theory to
software engineering and live systems? Am I just a victim of a small
troll/joke?
- Jake
ad application of category theory: No joke.
Atul Gawande's book The Checklist Manifesto deals with some of
this:
http://us.macmillan.com/****thechecklistmanifesto/****AtulGawande<http://us.macmillan.com/**thechecklistmanifesto/**AtulGawande>
<http://us.**macmillan.com/**thechecklistmanifesto/**AtulGawande<http://us.macmillan.com/thechecklistmanifesto/AtulGawande>
In related news, for every type t of Haskell is it the case that
something called "_|_" is an object of the type?
oo--JS.
On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 12:46 PM, Jay Sulzberger <j...@panix.com> wrote:
On Sat, 4 Aug 2012, Vasili I. Galchin <vigalc...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Haskell Group,
I work in mainstream software industry.
I am going to make an assumption .... except for Jane Street
Capital all/most "Wall Street" software is written in an imperative
language.
Assuming this why is Wall Street not awaken to the dangers. As I
write, Knight Capital may not survive the weekend.
Regards,
Vasili
I believe this particular mild error was in part due to a failure
to grasp and apply category theory. There are several systems here:
1. The design of the code.
2. The coding of the code.
3. The testing of the code.
4. The live running of the code.
5. The watcher systems which watch the live running.
If the newspaper reports are to be believed, the watcher systems,
all of them, failed. Or there was not even one watcher system
observing/correcting/halting at the time of running.
Category theory suggests that all of these systems are worthy of
study, and that these systems have inter-relations, which are
just as worthy of study.
oo--JS.
______________________________****_________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/****mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe<http://www.haskell.org/**mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe>
<**http://www.haskell.org/**mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe<http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe>
______________________________****_________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/****mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe<http://www.haskell.org/**mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe>
<**http://www.haskell.org/**mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe<http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe>
______________________________**_________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/**mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe<http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe>
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
