On Sun, 2009-02-15 at 18:53 +0100, Tillmann Rendel wrote:
> Gregg Reynolds wrote:
> > BTW, I'm not talking about Haskell's Functor class, I guess I should
> > have made that clear. I'm talking about category theory, as the
> > semantic framework for thinking about Haskell.
>
> In that case, I eve
On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 7:54 PM, Svein Ove Aas wrote:
> 2009/2/15 Gregg Reynolds :
>>
>> The metaphor is action-at-a-distance. Quantum entanglement is a vivid way
>> of conveying it since it is so strange, but true. Obviously one is not
>> expected to understand quantum entanglement, only the id
2009/2/15 Gregg Reynolds :
>
> The metaphor is action-at-a-distance. Quantum entanglement is a vivid way
> of conveying it since it is so strange, but true. Obviously one is not
> expected to understand quantum entanglement, only the idea of two things
> linked "invisibly" across a boundary.
>
Th
On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 12:45 PM, Anton van Straaten wrote:
> Gregg Reynolds wrote:
>
>> Action-at-a-distance is a metaphor meant to enliven the concept.
>>
>
> Kind of like the container metaphor?
>
Yes, only, different. Non-pernicious. ;)
___
Haske
Gregg Reynolds wrote:
Action-at-a-distance is a metaphor meant to enliven the concept.
Kind of like the container metaphor?
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Tillmann Rendel wrote:
> Gregg Reynolds wrote:
>
>> BTW, I'm not talking about Haskell's Functor class, I guess I should
>> have made that clear. I'm talking about category theory, as the
>> semantic framework for thinking about Haskell.
>
>
Don't forget the par
Quantum entanglement is related to a different kind of categorical
product. So, the metaphor is misleading.
But, that being said : I want to thank you for your blog. A bit
polemic but very interesting.
Christophe.
Came up with an alternative to the container metaphor for functors
that you
Gregg Reynolds wrote:
BTW, I'm not talking about Haskell's Functor class, I guess I should
have made that clear. I'm talking about category theory, as the
semantic framework for thinking about Haskell.
In that case, I even less see why you are not introducing category
theory proper. Certainly
On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 11:09 AM, Tillmann Rendel wrote:
> Gregg Reynolds wrote:
>
>> Came up with an alternative to the container metaphor for functors that
>> you
>> might find amusing: http://syntax.wikidot.com/blog:9
>>
>
> You seem to describe Bifunctors (two objects from one category are m
Gregg Reynolds wrote:
Came up with an alternative to the container metaphor for functors that you
might find amusing: http://syntax.wikidot.com/blog:9
You seem to describe Bifunctors (two objects from one category are
mapped to one object in another category), but Haskell's Functor class
is
Came up with an alternative to the container metaphor for functors that you
might find amusing: http://syntax.wikidot.com/blog:9
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
11 matches
Mail list logo
