[Haskell-cafe] Restricted type classes
Dan Doel
dan.doel at gmail.com
Fri Sep 10 18:47:14 EDT 2010
On Wednesday 08 September 2010 11:17:43 pm wren ng thornton wrote:
> -- | Proof that impure is not pure at E
> fmap f (impure a)
> == fmap f (E a a)
> == E (f a) a
> /= E (f a) (f a)
> == impure (f a)
I don't believe your proof. The type of E is as follows:
E :: a -> b -> E a
The free theorem given by that type is:
forall f g x y. map f (E x y) = E (f x) (g y)
Setting y = x and g = f, we get:
forall f x. map f (E x x) = E (f x) (f x)
So your above proof simply assumes that parametricity can be refuted. seq may
cause that, but without seq, one would expect parametricity to hold, or at
least not be refutable (unless there are other notorious examples I'm failing
to remember; existential types aren't one).
I think the core of this is your ensuing discussion about equality versus
equivalence. You seem to be advancing the notion that "equality" can only be
used to refer to intensional equality. But intensional equality doesn't work
very well for existential types, and up to extensional equality, the above
should hold. Further, even with intensional equality, one wouldn't expect to
be able to prove that E (f a) a /= E (f a) (f a). We should merely not be able
to prove that E (f a) a = E (f a) (f a).
Going back to free theorems, the theorem for:
pure :: a -> T a
is
map f . pure = pure . f
so any proposed counter example to that must be a refutation of parametricity
for the language in question. I can believe that seq will produce refutations.
Any proposal in which existential types do the same parametricity seems to me
like it should be rethought.
-- Dan
More information about the Haskell-Cafe
mailing list