On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 14:07 -0700, Dan Piponi wrote: > On 7/12/07, Andrew Coppin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Stefan O'Rear wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 07:19:07PM +0100, Andrew Coppin wrote: > > > > > >> I'm still puzzled as to what makes the other categories so magical that > > >> they cannot be considered sets. > > I thought I'd dive in with a comment to explain why category theory is > an important subject and why it often crops up in Haskell programming. > The key thing is this: in many branches of mathematics people draw > what are known as commutative diagrams: > http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CommutativeDiagram.html > > So what do these diagrams represent?
Equations. > To a good approximation (and there is a certain amount of choice over > which approximation you pick) Haskell also forms a category. Haskell does form a category. To a good approximation Haskell forms a -nice- category. _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
