[Haskell-cafe] A question about causality in FRP
ajeffrey at bell-labs.com
Sat Oct 15 20:49:23 CEST 2011
One more thing... The function:
return :: a -> Beh a
return x t = x
fails to be causal when a is itself a behaviour, since it specializes to
(after a bit of eta-conversion):
return :: Beh a -> Beh (Beh a)
return b t u = b u
which isn't causal. This rules out return, which in turn means that Beh
can't implement the Monad type class.
I don't think this impacts arrowized FRP, but it does mean that any
causal non-arrowized model can't form a monad, which seems unfortunate.
If the "causality" requirement were replaced by "deep causality" then I
believe the model would form a monad (cough cough but in a different
On 10/14/2011 05:18 PM, Jeffrey, Alan S A (Alan) wrote:
> I should add that I have a pragmatic reason for asking about causality,
> which is that over at https://github.com/agda/agda-frp-js I have an
> implementation of FRP for Agda running in the browser using an
> Agda-to-JS back end I wrote.
> In that model, I can see how to implement deep causality, but I can't
> see how to implement shallow causality, since the back end interfaces to
> the DOM event and time model.
>> On 10/13/2011 10:43 PM, David Barbour wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 7:54 AM, Alan Jeffrey<ajeffrey at bell-labs.com
>>>> <mailto:ajeffrey at bell-labs.com>> wrote:
>>>> The `problem` such as it exists: you will be unable to causally
>>>> construct the argument toith the `weird` function, except by modeling a
>>>> nested/simulated world (i.e. modeling one FRP system within another).
>>>> This is not an unrealistic endeavor, e.g. one might model the future
>>>> position of a thrown baseball in order to predict it. In this sense,
>>>> `weird` is not weird.
>> Ah, I think this is a very good summary. It seems that there's an
>> implicit shift of worlds when you nest FRP behaviours. The top level
>> world (the one that reactimate is executing) uses wall-clock time, but
>> nested behaviours are in a different world, where time is simulated.
>> Making these worlds explicit (I never met a problem that couldn't use
>> some more phantom types :-) we have a type Beh W A for a behaviour in
>> world W of type A, and a definition of causality that's indexed by
>> worlds. Writing RW for the top-level real world, and SW for a simulated
>> world, we have:
>> weird : Beh RW (Beh RW A) -> Beh RW A
>> weird b t = b t (t + 1) -- not causal
>> weird : Beh RW (Beh SW A) -> Beh RW A
>> weird b t = b t (t + 1) -- causal
>> double : Beh RW A -> Beh RW (Beh RW A)
>> double b t u = b u -- causal
>> double : Beh RW A -> Beh RW (Beh SW A)
>> double b t u = b u -- not causal
>> [Caveat: details not worked out.]
>> Making worlds explicit like this I think helps clarify why one person's
>> "weird" is another person's "perfectly reasonable function" :-)
>> Does something like this help clarify matters?
More information about the Haskell-Cafe