[Haskell-cafe] Where is the "convergence point" between Category Theory and Haskell?
alex.solla at gmail.com
Sun Jan 13 18:44:47 CET 2013
There was a conversation on the cafe about this last month. Check out:
Category theory is a "language" of composition. In "logical" terms,
different categories are models of different axioms. That said, a "rich
enough" category is suitable for encoding the "whole" of category theory
(as a language -- not necessarily as a model containing sub-models. Typing
introduces some complications, since types meant to help us escape logical
paradoxes like Russell's by introducing a notion of "foundedness")
Hask is the category whose objects are types and whose morphisms are
Hask is a very rich category, and is suitable for encoding a lot (but not
all) of category theory. As far as I know, the actual boundary is as yet
On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 4:15 AM, Alfredo Di Napoli <
alfredo.dinapoli at gmail.com> wrote:
> Morning Cafe,
> I'm planning to do a series of write-ups about Category Theory, to publish
> them on the company's blog I'm currently employed.
> I'm not a CT expert, but since the best way to learn something is to
> explain it to others, I want to take a shot :)
> In my mind I will structure the posts following Awodey's book, but I'm
> wondering how can I make my posts a little more "real world".
> I always read about the "Hask category", which seems to be the "bootstrap"
> of the whole logic behind Haskell. Can you please give my
> materials/papers/links/blogs to the Hask category and briefly explain me
> how it relates to Category Theory and Haskell itself?
> I hope my question is clear enough, in case is not, I'll restate :P
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Haskell-Cafe