Yitzchak Gale wrote:
David House wrote:
I've added a bit more explanation, so it may now be palatable. It is
quite a hard exercise, though, perhaps it shouldn't come so early on.
In my opinion, it is now much more clear. And it is a very
instructive example.
If people still find it too hard, you could add the additional
hint: Keep in mind that there are no morphisms
other than the ones shown in the diagram.
Ok I understand it now, because David has just clarified offlist the thing
that puzzled me about the diagram: namely that morphisms have an
individuality of their own that isn't fully determined by the lhs and rhs of
the arrow like the relationship between a function and its type.
Brian.
--
http://www.metamilk.com
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
