On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 10:32 PM, Dan Weston <[email protected]> wrote: > I truly have no idea what you are saying (and probably not even what I am > saying), but I suspect: > > a) You are calling IO the target category of applying the functor IO [taking > a to IO a and (a->b) to (IO a -> IO b)] to Hask. > > b) This category is hardly bereft, nor discrete. Its morphisms are IO a -> > IO b.
Well, that's a function in Haskell, yes; but does it represent a morphism /in/ the category? It looks more like a Functor morphism to me. > > c) What you are calling a "bereft" category is an empty category. Without > (identity) morphisms, there can be no objects. There is only one such Right, I meant other than Id morphisms. I guess "discrete" is the correct term. > category (the empty category), so naturally any two such are isomorphic (for > what it's worth, which I suspect is not much). Thanks, g _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
