FunctorFix

[Wolfgang Jeltsch]

I see that a general right shrinking axiom would be a bad idea as it
would rule out many sensible instances of MonadFix. However, I think
that it is very reasonable to have the following restricted right
shrinking axiom:

    mfix (\ ~(x, _) -> liftM2 (,) (f x) g) = liftM2 (,) (mfix f) g

The important difference compared to general right shrinking is that the
shape (or effect) of g does not depend on the output of f x.

Does this restricted right shrinking follow from the current MonadFix
axioms? At the moment, it does not look to me that it would.

An interesting fact about this restricted right shrinking is that it
makes sense not only for all monads, but for all applicative functors.

All the best,
Wolfgang

Am Donnerstag, den 07.09.2017, 10:11 -0500 schrieb Jonathan S:
> Your right shrinking law is almost exactly the (impure) right
> shrinking law specified in Erkok's thesis on page 22, equation 2.22.
> The problem with this law, as shown on page 56, is that most of the
> MonadFix instances we care about do not follow the right shrinking
> law. In general (see Proposition 3.1.6 on page 27), if (>>=) is strict
> in its left argument then either the monad is trivial or right
> shrinking is not satisfied.
> 
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 9:21 PM, David Feuer <david.feuer at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > 
> > I think you'll at least have to specify that g is lazy, because f
> > may let its argument "leak" arbitrarily into the return value of the
> > action it produces. But I don't have a clear sense of whether this
> > is a good law otherwise.
> > 
> > On Sep 6, 2017 10:04 PM, Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > While we are at pure right shrinking, let me bring up another
> > question: Why is there no general right shrinking axiom for
> > MonadFix? Something like the following:
> > 
> > Right Shrinking:
> > 
> >     mfix (\ ~(x, _) -> f x >>= \ y -> g y >>= \z -> return (y, z)) >>= return . snd
> >     =
> >     mfix f >>= g
> > 
> > Can this be derived from the MonadFix axioms? Or are there
> > reasonable MonadFix instances for which it does not hold?
> > 
> > All the best,
> > Wolfgang