[Haskell-cafe] Basic question concerning the category Hask (was:
concerning data constructors)
jonathanccast at fastmail.fm
Wed Jan 2 10:26:37 EST 2008
On 2 Jan 2008, at 5:49 AM, Yitzchak Gale wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
> Andrew Bromage wrote:
>> I still say it "isn't a set" in the same way that a group "isn't a
>> Haskell data types have structure that is respected by Haskell
>> homomorphisms. Sets don't.
> Ah, that's certainly true. But what is that additional structure?
> In categories that have a forgetful functor to Set, the interesting
> part of their structure comes from the fact that their
> morphisms are only a proper subset of the morphisms
> in Set.
> So in what way are Set morphisms restricted from being
> Hask morphisms?
The normal view taken by Haskellers is that the denotations of
Haskell types are CPPOs. So:
(1) Must be monotone
(2) Must be continuous
(Needn't be strict, even though that messes up the resulting category
More information about the Haskell-Cafe