Mathematics in Haskell
rfhayes at reillyhayes.com
Tue Apr 3 00:46:34 EDT 2007
Wouldn't this be a good discussion for the Haskell Prime List?
+1 415 388 3903 (office)
+1 415 846 1827 (mobile)
rfh at ridgecrestfinancial.com
On Apr 2, 2007, at 3:24 PM, Andrzej Jaworski wrote:
>> I too was put off by the Num issues though--strange mixture of
>> category theory and lack of a sensible hierarchy of algebraic
> Perhaps we should replace CT with lattice theoretic thinking (e.g.
> functor = monotonic
> function) before cleaning up the type-related mess?
> See: http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/269479.html
>> so count me in on an effort to make Haskell more mathematical.
>> For me that
>> probably starts with the semigroup/group/ring setup, and good
>> arbitrary-precision as well as approximate linear algebra support.
> I agree: semigoups like lattices are everywhere.
> Then there could be a uniform treatment of linear algebra,
> polynomial equations, operator
> algebra, etc. So, perhaps haste is not a good advice here?
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Haskell-prime