X-Git-Url: http://lambda.jimpryor.net/git/gitweb.cgi?a=blobdiff_plain;ds=sidebyside;f=advanced_topics%2Fmonads_in_category_theory.mdwn;h=c45c948396c33d85882fc22dcf85cb8f20121396;hb=b5951492496e5d63882d7bd59ec3568fe5df1185;hp=c0d4bf7f8cc08712dcd6f3824aadf0f2ae59c6f9;hpb=86c716d4c3d50b20cd1fbf426e139c07629641aa;p=lambda.git
diff --git a/advanced_topics/monads_in_category_theory.mdwn b/advanced_topics/monads_in_category_theory.mdwn
index c0d4bf7f..c45c9483 100644
--- a/advanced_topics/monads_in_category_theory.mdwn
+++ b/advanced_topics/monads_in_category_theory.mdwn
@@ -8,11 +8,16 @@ together. Also, this really is "put together." I haven't yet found an
authoritative source (that's accessible to a category theory beginner like
myself) that discusses the correspondence between the category-theoretic and
functional programming uses of these notions in enough detail to be sure that
-none of the pieces here is misguided. In particular, it wasn't completely
-obvious how to map the polymorphism on the programming theory side into the
-category theory. And I'm bothered by the fact that our `<=<` operation is only
-partly defined on our domain of natural transformations. But this does seem to
-me to be the reasonable way to put the pieces together. We very much welcome
+none of the pieces here is mistaken.
+In particular, it wasn't completely obvious how to map the polymorphism on the
+programming theory side into the category theory. The way I accomplished this
+may be more complex than it needs to be.
+Also I'm bothered by the fact that our `<=<` operation is only partly defined
+on our domain of natural transformations.
+There are three additional points below that I wonder whether may be too
+cavalier.
+But all considered, this does seem to
+me to be a reasonable way to put the pieces together. We very much welcome
feedback from anyone who understands these issues better, and will make
corrections.
@@ -33,8 +38,8 @@ Some examples of monoids are:
* finite strings of an alphabet `A`, with ⋆
being concatenation and `z` being the empty string
* all functions X→X
over a set `X`, with ⋆
being composition and `z` being the identity function over `X`
-* the natural numbers with ⋆
being plus and `z` being `0` (in particular, this is a **commutative monoid**). If we use the integers, or the naturals mod n, instead of the naturals, then every element will have an inverse and so we have not merely a monoid but a **group**.)
-* if we let ⋆
be multiplication and `z` be `1`, we get different monoids over the same sets as in the previous item.
+* the natural numbers with ⋆
being plus and `z` being 0 (in particular, this is a **commutative monoid**). If we use the integers, or the naturals mod n, instead of the naturals, then every element will have an inverse and so we have not merely a monoid but a **group**.
+* if we let ⋆
be multiplication and `z` be 1, we get different monoids over the same sets as in the previous item.
Categories
----------
@@ -51,28 +56,28 @@ To have a category, the elements and morphisms have to satisfy some constraints:
(ii) composition of morphisms has to be associative
- (iii) every element E of the category has to have an identity
- morphism 1E, which is such that for every morphism f:C1→C2:
+ (iii) every element X of the category has to have an identity
+ morphism 1X, which is such that for every morphism f:C1→C2:
1C2 ∘ f = f = f ∘ 1C1
-These parallel the constraints for monoids. Note that there can be multiple distinct morphisms between an element `E` and itself; they need not all be identity morphisms. Indeed from (iii) it follows that each element can have only a single identity morphism.
+These parallel the constraints for monoids. Note that there can be multiple distinct morphisms between an element `X` and itself; they need not all be identity morphisms. Indeed from (iii) it follows that each element can have only a single identity morphism.
-A good intuitive picture of a category is as a generalized directed graph, where the category elements are the graph's nodes, and there can be multiple directed edges between a given pair of nodes, and nodes can also have multiple directed edges to themselves. (Every node must have at least one such, which is that node's identity morphism.)
+A good intuitive picture of a category is as a generalized directed graph, where the category elements are the graph's nodes, and there can be multiple directed edges between a given pair of nodes, and nodes can also have multiple directed edges to themselves. Morphisms correspond to directed paths of length ≥ 0 in the graph.
Some examples of categories are:
* Categories whose elements are sets and whose morphisms are functions between those sets. Here the source and target of a function are its domain and range, so distinct functions sharing a domain and range (e.g., `sin` and `cos`) are distinct morphisms between the same source and target elements. The identity morphism for any element/set is just the identity function for that set.
-* any monoid (S,⋆,z)
generates a category with a single element `x`; this `x` need not have any relation to `S`. The members of `S` play the role of *morphisms* of this category, rather than its elements. All of these morphisms are understood to map `x` to itself. The result of composing the morphism consisting of `s1` with the morphism `s2` is the morphism `s3`, where s3=s1⋆s2
. The identity morphism for the (single) category element `x` is the monoid's identity `z`.
+* any monoid (S,⋆,z)
generates a category with a single element `Q`; this `Q` need not have any relation to `S`. The members of `S` play the role of *morphisms* of this category, rather than its elements. All of these morphisms are understood to map `Q` to itself. The result of composing the morphism consisting of `s1` with the morphism `s2` is the morphism `s3`, where s3=s1⋆s2
. The identity morphism for the (single) category element `Q` is the monoid's identity `z`.
-* a **preorder** is a structure (S, ≤)
consisting of a reflexive, transitive, binary relation on a set `S`. It need not be connected (that is, there may be members `x`,`y` of `S` such that neither x≤y
nor y≤x
). It need not be anti-symmetric (that is, there may be members `s1`,`s2` of `S` such that s1≤s2
and s2≤s1
but `s1` and `s2` are not identical). Some examples:
+* a **preorder** is a structure (S, ≤)
consisting of a reflexive, transitive, binary relation on a set `S`. It need not be connected (that is, there may be members `s1`,`s2` of `S` such that neither s1 ≤ s2
nor s2 ≤ s1
). It need not be anti-symmetric (that is, there may be members `s1`,`s2` of `S` such that s1 ≤ s2
and s2 ≤ s1
but `s1` and `s2` are not identical). Some examples:
* sentences ordered by logical implication ("p and p" implies and is implied by "p", but these sentences are not identical; so this illustrates a pre-order without anti-symmetry)
* sets ordered by size (this illustrates it too)
- Any pre-order (S,≤)
generates a category whose elements are the members of `S` and which has only a single morphism between any two elements `s1` and `s2`, iff s1≤s2
.
+ Any pre-order (S,≤)
generates a category whose elements are the members of `S` and which has only a single morphism between any two elements `s1` and `s2`, iff s1 ≤ s2
.
Functors
@@ -136,7 +141,7 @@ Then (η F)
is a natural transformation from the (composite) fun
And (K η)
is a natural transformation from the (composite) functor `KG` to the (composite) functor `KH`, such that where `C1` is an element of category C, (K η)[C1] = K(η[C1])
---that is, the morphism in E that `K` assigns to the morphism η[C1]
of D.
-(φ -v- η)
is a natural transformation from `G` to `J`; this is known as a "vertical composition". We will rely later on this, where f:C1→C2
:
+(φ -v- η)
is a natural transformation from `G` to `J`; this is known as a "vertical composition". For any morphism f:C1→C2
in C:
φ[C2] ∘ H(f) ∘ η[C1] = φ[C2] ∘ H(f) ∘ η[C1] @@ -186,75 +191,95 @@ In earlier days, these were also called "triples." A **monad** is a structure consisting of an (endo)functor `M` from some category C to itself, along with some natural transformations, which we'll specify in a moment. -Let `T` be a set of natural transformations- when φ a transformation from F to MF', γ a transformation from F' to MG', ρ a transformation from G' to MR' all in T: +φ
, each being between some (variable) functor `F` and another functor which is the composite `MF'` of `M` and a (variable) functor `F'`. That is, for each element `C1` in C,φ
assigns `C1` a morphism from element `F(C1)` to element `MF'(C1)`, satisfying the constraints detailed in the previous section. For different members of `T`, the relevant functors may differ; that is,φ
is a transformation from functor `F` to `MF'`,γ
is a transformation from functor `G` to `MG'`, and none of `F`, `F'`, `G`, `G'` need be the same. +Let `T` be a set of natural transformationsφ
, each being between some arbitrary endofunctor `F` on C and another functor which is the composite `MF'` of `M` and another arbitrary endofunctor `F'` on C. That is, for each element `C1` in C,φ
assigns `C1` a morphism from element `F(C1)` to element `MF'(C1)`, satisfying the constraints detailed in the previous section. For different members of `T`, the relevant functors may differ; that is,φ
is a transformation from functor `F` to `MF'`,γ
is a transformation from functor `G` to `MG'`, and none of `F`, `F'`, `G`, `G'` need be the same. -One of the members of `T` will be designated the "unit" transformation for `M`, and it will be a transformation from the identity functor `1C` for C to `M(1C)`. So it will assign to `C1` a morphism from `C1` to `M(C1)`. +One of the members of `T` will be designated the `unit` transformation for `M`, and it will be a transformation from the identity functor `1C` for C to `M(1C)`. So it will assign to `C1` a morphism from `C1` to `M(C1)`. -We also need to designate for `M` a "join" transformation, which is a natural transformation from the (composite) functor `MM` to `M`. +We also need to designate for `M` a `join` transformation, which is a natural transformation from the (composite) functor `MM` to `M`. These two natural transformations have to satisfy some constraints ("the monad laws") which are most easily stated if we can introduce a defined notion. -Letφ
andγ
be members of `T`, that is they are natural transformations from `F` to `MF'` and from `G` to `MG'`, respectively. Let them be such that `F' = G`. Now(M γ)
will also be a natural transformation, formed by composing the functor `M` with the natural transformationγ
. Similarly, `(join G')` will be a natural transformation, formed by composing the natural transformation `join` with the functor `G'`; it will transform the functor `MMG'` to the functor `MG'`. Now take the vertical composition of the three natural transformations `(join G')`,(M γ)
, andφ
, and abbreviate it as follows: +Letφ
andγ
be members of `T`, that is they are natural transformations from `F` to `MF'` and from `G` to `MG'`, respectively. Let them be such that `F' = G`. Now(M γ)
will also be a natural transformation, formed by composing the functor `M` with the natural transformationγ
. Similarly, `(join G')` will be a natural transformation, formed by composing the natural transformation `join` with the functor `G'`; it will transform the functor `MMG'` to the functor `MG'`. Now take the vertical composition of the three natural transformations `(join G')`,(M γ)
, andφ
, and abbreviate it as follows. Since composition is associative I don't specify the order of composition on the rhs.γ <=< φ =def. ((join G') -v- (M γ) -v- φ)-Since composition is associative I don't specify the order of composition on the rhs. +In other words, `<=<` is a binary operator that takes us from two membersφ
andγ
of `T` to a composite natural transformation. (In functional programming, at least, this is called the "Kleisli composition operator". Sometimes it's writtenφ >=> γ
where that's the same asγ <=< φ
.) -In other words, `<=<` is a binary operator that takes us from two membersφ
andγ
of `T` to a composite natural transformation. (In functional programming, at least, this is called the "Kleisli composition operator". Sometimes it's writtenφ >=> γ
where that's the same asγ <=< φ
.) - -φ
is a transformation from `F` to `MF'`, where the latter = `MG`;(M γ)
is a transformation from `MG` to `MMG'`; and `(join G')` is a transformation from `MMG'` to `MG'`. So the compositeγ <=< φ
will be a transformation from `F` to `MG'`, and so also eligible to be a member of `T`. +φ
is a transformation from `F` to `MF'`, where the latter = `MG`;(M γ)
is a transformation from `MG` to `MMG'`; and `(join G')` is a transformation from `MMG'` to `MG'`. So the compositeγ <=< φ
will be a transformation from `F` to `MG'`, and so also eligible to be a member of `T`. Now we can specify the "monad laws" governing a monad as follows: +(T, <=<, unit) constitute a monoid +-That's it. Well, there may be a wrinkle here. I don't know whether the definition of a monoid requires the operation to be defined for every pair in its set. In the present case,γ <=< φ
isn't fully defined on `T`, but only whenφ
is a transformation to some `MF'` andγ
is a transformation from `F'`. But wherever `<=<` is defined, the monoid laws are satisfied: +That's it. Well, there may be a wrinkle here. I don't know whether the definition of a monoid requires the operation to be defined for every pair in its set. In the present case,γ <=< φ
isn't fully defined on `T`, but only whenφ
is a transformation to some `MF'` andγ
is a transformation from `F'`. But wherever `<=<` is defined, the monoid laws must hold:(i) γ <=< φ is also in T (ii) (ρ <=< γ) <=< φ = ρ <=< (γ <=< φ) - (iii.1) unit <=< φ = φ (here φ has to be a natural transformation to M(1C)) + (iii.1) unit <=< φ = φ + (here φ has to be a natural transformation to M(1C)) - (iii.2) φ = φ <=< unit (here φ has to be a natural transformation from 1C) + (iii.2) ρ = ρ <=< unit + (here ρ has to be a natural transformation from 1C)-Ifφ
is a natural transformation from `F` to `M(1C)` andγ
is(φ G')
, that is, a natural transformation from `FG` to `MG`, then we can extend (iii.1) as follows: +Ifφ
is a natural transformation from `F` to `M(1C)` andγ
is(φ G')
, that is, a natural transformation from `FG'` to `MG'`, then we can extend (iii.1) as follows:γ = (φ G') = ((unit <=< φ) G') - = ((join -v- (M unit) -v- φ) G') - = (join G') -v- ((M unit) G') -v- (φ G') - = (join G') -v- (M (unit G')) -v- γ - ?? + since unit is a natural transformation to M(1C), this is: + = (((join 1C) -v- (M unit) -v- φ) G') + = (((join 1C) G') -v- ((M unit) G') -v- (φ G')) + = ((join (1C G')) -v- (M (unit G')) -v- γ) + = ((join G') -v- (M (unit G')) -v- γ) + since (unit G') is a natural transformation to MG', this is: = (unit G') <=< γwhere as we saidγ
is a natural transformation from some `FG'` to `MG'`. -Similarly, ifφ
is a natural transformation from `1C` to `MF'`, andγ
is(φ G)
, that is, a natural transformation from `G` to `MF'G`, then we can extend (iii.2) as follows: +Similarly, ifρ
is a natural transformation from `1C` to `MR'`, andγ
is(ρ G)
, that is, a natural transformation from `G` to `MR'G`, then we can extend (iii.2) as follows:- γ = (φ G) - = ((φ <=< unit) G) - = (((join F') -v- (M φ) -v- unit) G) - = ((join F'G) -v- ((M φ) G) -v- (unit G)) - = ((join F'G) -v- (M (φ G)) -v- (unit G)) - ?? + γ = (ρ G) + = ((ρ <=< unit) G) + = since ρ is a natural transformation to MR', this is: + = (((join R') -v- (M ρ) -v- unit) G) + = (((join R') G) -v- ((M ρ) G) -v- (unit G)) + = ((join (R'G)) -v- (M (ρ G)) -v- (unit G)) + since γ = (ρ G) is a natural transformation to MR'G, this is: = γ <=< (unit G)-where as we saidγ
is a natural transformation from `G` to some `MF'G`. +where as we saidγ
is a natural transformation from `G` to some `MR'G`. + +Summarizing then, the monad laws can be expressed as: + ++ For all ρ, γ, φ in T for which ρ <=< γ and γ <=< φ are defined: + (i) γ <=< φ etc are also in T + (ii) (ρ <=< γ) <=< φ = ρ <=< (γ <=< φ) + + (iii.1) (unit G') <=< γ = γ + whenever γ is a natural transformation from some FG' to MG' + + (iii.2) γ = γ <=< (unit G) + whenever γ is a natural transformation from G to some MR'G +-The standard category-theory presentation of the monad laws ------------------------------------------------------------ + +Getting to the standard category-theory presentation of the monad laws +---------------------------------------------------------------------- In category theory, the monad laws are usually stated in terms of `unit` and `join` instead of `unit` and `<=<`. -Let's remind ourselves of some principles: +Let's remind ourselves of principles stated above: * composition of morphisms, functors, and natural compositions is associative * functors "distribute over composition", that is for any morphisms `f` and `g` in `F`'s source category:F(g ∘ f) = F(g) ∘ F(f)
-* ifη
is a natural transformation from `F` to `G`, then for everyf:C1→C2
in `F` and `G`'s source category C:η[C2] ∘ F(f) = G(f) ∘ η[C1]
. +* ifη
is a natural transformation from `G` to `H`, then for everyf:C1→C2
in `G` and `H`'s source category C:η[C2] ∘ G(f) = H(f) ∘ η[C1]
. + +*(η F)[X] = η[F(X)]
+ +*(K η)[X] = K(η[X])
+ +*((φ -v- η) F) = ((φ F) -v- (η F))
Let's use the definitions of naturalness, and of composition of natural transformations, to establish two lemmas. -Recall that join is a natural transformation from the (composite) functor `MM` to `M`. So for elements `C1` in C, `join[C1]` will be a morphism from `MM(C1)` to `M(C1)`. And for any morphismf:C1→C2
in C: +Recall that `join` is a natural transformation from the (composite) functor `MM` to `M`. So for elements `C1` in C, `join[C1]` will be a morphism from `MM(C1)` to `M(C1)`. And for any morphismf:C1→C2
in C:(1) join[C2] ∘ MM(f) = M(f) ∘ join[C1]-Next, consider the composite transformation((join MG') -v- (MM γ))
. +Next, letγ
be a transformation from `G` to `MG'`, and + consider the composite transformation((join MG') -v- (MM γ))
. -*γ
is a transformation from `G` to `MG'`, and assigns elements `C1` in C a morphismγ\*: G(C1) → MG'(C1)
.(MM γ)
is a transformation that instead assigns `C1` the morphismMM(γ\*)
. +*γ
assigns elements `C1` in C a morphismγ\*:G(C1) → MG'(C1)
.(MM γ)
is a transformation that instead assigns `C1` the morphismMM(γ\*)
. -* `(join MG')` is a transformation from `MMMG'` to `MMG'` that assigns `C1` the morphism `join[MG'(C1)]`. +* `(join MG')` is a transformation from `MM(MG')` to `M(MG')` that assigns `C1` the morphism `join[MG'(C1)]`. Composing them:- (2) ((join MG') -v- (MM γ)) assigns to `C1` the morphism join[MG'(C1)] ∘ MM(γ*). + (2) ((join MG') -v- (MM γ)) assigns to C1 the morphism join[MG'(C1)] ∘ MM(γ*).-Next, consider the composite transformation((M γ) -v- (join G))
. +Next, consider the composite transformation((M γ) -v- (join G))
:- (3) This assigns to C1 the morphism M(γ*) ∘ join[G(C1)]. + (3) ((M γ) -v- (join G)) assigns to C1 the morphism M(γ*) ∘ join[G(C1)].So for every element `C1` of C:((join MG') -v- (MM γ))[C1], by (2) is: - join[MG'(C1)] ∘ MM(γ*), which by (1), with f=γ*: G(C1)→MG'(C1) is: + join[MG'(C1)] ∘ MM(γ*), which by (1), with f=γ*:G(C1)→MG'(C1) is: M(γ*) ∘ join[G(C1)], which by 3 is: ((M γ) -v- (join G))[C1]@@ -309,33 +341,34 @@ So for every element `C1` of C: So our **(lemma 1)** is:- ((join MG') -v- (MM γ)) = ((M γ) -v- (join G)), where γ is a transformation from G to MG'. + ((join MG') -v- (MM γ)) = ((M γ) -v- (join G)), + where as we said γ is a natural transformation from G to MG'.-Next recall that unit is a natural transformation from `1C` to `M`. So for elements `C1` in C, `unit[C1]` will be a morphism from `C1` to `M(C1)`. And for any morphismf:a→b
in C: +Next recall that `unit` is a natural transformation from `1C` to `M`. So for elements `C1` in C, `unit[C1]` will be a morphism from `C1` to `M(C1)`. And for any morphismf:C1→C2
in C:- (4) unit[b] ∘ f = M(f) ∘ unit[a] + (4) unit[C2] ∘ f = M(f) ∘ unit[C1]-Next consider the composite transformation((M γ) -v- (unit G))
: +Next, consider the composite transformation((M γ) -v- (unit G))
:- (5) This assigns to C1 the morphism M(γ*) ∘ unit[G(C1)]. + (5) ((M γ) -v- (unit G)) assigns to C1 the morphism M(γ*) ∘ unit[G(C1)].-Next consider the composite transformation((unit MG') -v- γ)
. +Next, consider the composite transformation((unit MG') -v- γ)
:- (6) This assigns to C1 the morphism unit[MG'(C1)] ∘ γ*. + (6) ((unit MG') -v- γ) assigns to C1 the morphism unit[MG'(C1)] ∘ γ*.So for every element C1 of C:((M γ) -v- (unit G))[C1], by (5) = - M(γ*) ∘ unit[G(C1)], which by (4), with f=γ*: G(C1)→MG'(C1) is: + M(γ*) ∘ unit[G(C1)], which by (4), with f=γ*:G(C1)→MG'(C1) is: unit[MG'(C1)] ∘ γ*, which by (6) = ((unit MG') -v- γ)[C1]@@ -343,130 +376,238 @@ So for every element C1 of C: So our **(lemma 2)** is:- (((M γ) -v- (unit G)) = ((unit MG') -v- γ)), where γ is a transformation from G to MG'. + (((M γ) -v- (unit G)) = ((unit MG') -v- γ)), + where as we said γ is a natural transformation from G to MG'.-Finally, we substitute((join G') -v- (M γ) -v- φ)
forγ <=< φ
in the monad laws. For simplicity, I'll omit the "-v-". +Finally, we substitute((join G') -v- (M γ) -v- φ)
forγ <=< φ
in the monad laws. For simplicity, I'll omit the "-v-".- for all φ,γ,ρ in T, where φ is a transformation from F to MF', γ is a transformation from G to MG', R is a transformation from R to MR', and F'=G and G'=R: + For all ρ, γ, φ in T, + where φ is a transformation from F to MF', + γ is a transformation from G to MG', + ρ is a transformation from R to MR', + and F'=G and G'=R: - (i) γ <=< φ etc are also in T + (i) γ <=< φ etc are also in T ==> - (i') ((join G') (M γ) φ) etc are also in T - + (i') ((join G') (M γ) φ) etc are also in T +- (ii) (ρ <=< γ) <=< φ = ρ <=< (γ <=< φ) ++ (ii) (ρ <=< γ) <=< φ = ρ <=< (γ <=< φ) ==> - (ρ <=< γ) is a transformation from G to MR', so: - (ρ <=< γ) <=< φ becomes: (join R') (M (ρ <=< γ)) φ - which is: (join R') (M ((join R') (M ρ) γ)) φ - substituting in (ii), and helping ourselves to associativity on the rhs, we get: - - ((join R') (M ((join R') (M ρ) γ)) φ) = ((join R') (M ρ) (join G') (M γ) φ) - --------------------- - which by the distributivity of functors over composition, and helping ourselves to associativity on the lhs, yields: - ------------------------ - ((join R') (M join R') (MM ρ) (M γ) φ) = ((join R') (M ρ) (join G') (M γ) φ) - --------------- - which by lemma 1, with ρ a transformation from G' to MR', yields: - ----------------- - ((join R') (M join R') (MM ρ) (M γ) φ) = ((join R') (join MR') (MM ρ) (M γ) φ) + (ρ <=< γ) is a transformation from G to MR', so + (ρ <=< γ) <=< φ becomes: ((join R') (M (ρ <=< γ)) φ) + which is: ((join R') (M ((join R') (M ρ) γ)) φ) - which will be true for all ρ,γ,φ just in case: + similarly, ρ <=< (γ <=< φ) is: + ((join R') (M ρ) ((join G') (M γ) φ)) - ((join R') (M join R')) = ((join R') (join MR')), for any R'. + substituting these into (ii), and helping ourselves to associativity on the rhs, we get: + ((join R') (M ((join R') (M ρ) γ)) φ) = ((join R') (M ρ) (join G') (M γ) φ) + + which by the distributivity of functors over composition, and helping ourselves to associativity on the lhs, yields: + ((join R') (M join R') (MM ρ) (M γ) φ) = ((join R') (M ρ) (join G') (M γ) φ) + + which by lemma 1, with ρ a transformation from G' to MR', yields: + ((join R') (M join R') (MM ρ) (M γ) φ) = ((join R') (join MR') (MM ρ) (M γ) φ) - which will in turn be true just in case: + [-- Are the next two steps too cavalier? --] - (ii') (join (M join)) = (join (join M)) + which will be true for all ρ, γ, φ only when: + ((join R') (M join R')) = ((join R') (join MR')), for any R' + which will in turn be true when: + (ii') (join (M join)) = (join (join M)) +- (iii.1) (unit F') <=< φ = φ ++ (iii.1) (unit G') <=< γ = γ + when γ is a natural transformation from some FG' to MG' ==> - (unit F') is a transformation from F' to MF', so: - (unit F') <=< φ becomes: (join F') (M unit F') φ - which is: (join F') (M unit F') φ - substituting in (iii.1), we get: - ((join F') (M unit F') φ) = φ + (unit G') is a transformation from G' to MG', so: + (unit G') <=< γ becomes: ((join G') (M (unit G')) γ) + which is: ((join G') ((M unit) G') γ) - which will be true for all φ just in case: + substituting in (iii.1), we get: + ((join G') ((M unit) G') γ) = γ - ((join F') (M unit F')) = the identity transformation, for any F' + which is: + (((join (M unit)) G') γ) = γ - which will in turn be true just in case: + [-- Are the next two steps too cavalier? --] - (iii.1') (join (M unit) = the identity transformation + which will be true for all γ just in case: + for any G', ((join (M unit)) G') = the identity transformation + which will in turn be true just in case: + (iii.1') (join (M unit)) = the identity transformation +- (iii.2) φ = φ <=< (unit F) ++ (iii.2) γ = γ <=< (unit G) + when γ is a natural transformation from G to some MR'G ==> - φ is a transformation from F to MF', so: - unit <=< φ becomes: (join F') (M φ) unit - substituting in (iii.2), we get: - φ = ((join F') (M φ) (unit F)) - -------------- - which by lemma (2), yields: - ------------ - φ = ((join F') ((unit MF') φ) + γ <=< (unit G) becomes: ((join R'G) (M γ) (unit G)) + + substituting in (iii.2), we get: + γ = ((join R'G) (M γ) (unit G)) + + which by lemma 2, yields: + γ = (((join R'G) ((unit MR'G) γ) - which will be true for all φ just in case: + which is: + γ = (((join (unit M)) R'G) γ) - ((join F') (unit MF')) = the identity transformation, for any F' + [-- Are the next two steps too cavalier? --] - which will in turn be true just in case: + which will be true for all γ just in case: + for any R'G, ((join (unit M)) R'G) = the identity transformation + which will in turn be true just in case: (iii.2') (join (unit M)) = the identity transformationCollecting the results, our monad laws turn out in this format to be: -
+ For all ρ, γ, φ in T, + where φ is a transformation from F to MF', + γ is a transformation from G to MG', + ρ is a transformation from R to MR', + and F'=G and G'=R: - (i') ((join G') (M γ) φ) etc also in T + (i') ((join G') (M γ) φ) etc also in T - (ii') (join (M join)) = (join (join M)) + (ii') (join (M join)) = (join (join M)) (iii.1') (join (M unit)) = the identity transformation - (iii.2')(join (unit M)) = the identity transformation + (iii.2') (join (unit M)) = the identity transformation-7. The functional programming presentation of the monad laws ------------------------------------------------------------- -In functional programming, unit is usually called "return" and the monad laws are usually stated in terms of return and an operation called "bind" which is interdefinable with <=< or with join. - -Additionally, whereas in category-theory one works "monomorphically", in functional programming one usually works with "polymorphic" functions. +Getting to the functional programming presentation of the monad laws +-------------------------------------------------------------------- +In functional programming, `unit` is sometimes called `return` and the monad laws are usually stated in terms of `unit`/`return` and an operation called `bind` which is interdefinable with `<=<` or with `join`. The base category C will have types as elements, and monadic functions as its morphisms. The source and target of a morphism will be the types of its argument and its result. (As always, there can be multiple distinct morphisms from the same source to the same target.) -A monad M will consist of a mapping from types C1 to types M(C1), and a mapping from functions f:C1→C2 to functions M(f):M(C1)→M(C2). This is also known as "fmap f" or "liftM f" for M, and is called "function f lifted into the monad M." For example, where M is the list monad, M maps every type X into the type "list of Xs", and maps every function f:x→y into the function that maps [x1,x2...] to [y1,y2,...]. +A monad `M` will consist of a mapping from types `'t` to types `M('t)`, and a mapping from functions
f:C1→C2
to functions M(f):M(C1)→M(C2)
. This is also known as liftM f
for `M`, and is pronounced "function f lifted into the monad M." For example, where `M` is the list monad, `M` maps every type `'t` into the type `'t list`, and maps every function f:x→y
into the function that maps `[x1,x2...]` to `[y1,y2,...]`.
+
+
+In functional programming, instead of working with natural transformations we work with "monadic values" and polymorphic functions "into the monad."
+
+A "monadic value" is any member of a type `M('t)`, for any type `'t`. For example, any `int list` is a monadic value for the list monad. We can think of these monadic values as the result of applying some function `phi`, whose type is `F('t)->M(F'('t))`. `'t` here is any collection of free type variables, and `F('t)` and `F'('t)` are types parameterized on `'t`. An example, with `M` being the list monad, `'t` being `('t1,'t2)`, `F('t1,'t2)` being `char * 't1 * 't2`, and `F'('t1,'t2)` being `int * 't1 * 't2`:
+
++ let phi = fun ((_:char, x y) -> [(1,x,y),(2,x,y)] ++ +Now where `gamma` is another function of type
F'('t) → M(G'('t))
, we define:
+
++ gamma =<< phi a =def. ((join G') -v- (M gamma)) (phi a) + = ((join G') -v- (M gamma) -v- phi) a + = (gamma <=< phi) a ++ +Hence: + +
+ gamma <=< phi = fun a -> (gamma =<< phi a) ++ +`gamma =<< phi a` is called the operation of "binding" the function gamma to the monadic value `phi a`, and is usually written as `phi a >>= gamma`. + +With these definitions, our monadic laws become: -A natural transformation t assigns to each type C1 in C a morphism t[C1]: C1→M(C1) such that, for every f:C1→C2: - t[C2] ∘ f = M(f) ∘ t[C1] +
+ Where phi is a polymorphic function of type F('t) -> M(F'('t)) + gamma is a polymorphic function of type G('t) -> M(G'('t)) + rho is a polymorphic function of type R('t) -> M(R'('t)) + and F' = G and G' = R, + and a ranges over values of type F('t), + b ranges over values of type G('t), + and c ranges over values of type G'('t): + + (i) γ <=< φ is defined, + and is a natural transformation from F to MG' + ==> + (i'') fun a -> gamma =<< phi a is defined, + and is a function from type F('t) -> M(G'('t)) ++ +
+ (ii) (ρ <=< γ) <=< φ = ρ <=< (γ <=< φ) + ==> + (fun a -> (rho <=< gamma) =<< phi a) = (fun a -> rho =<< (gamma <=< phi) a) + (fun a -> (fun b -> rho =<< gamma b) =<< phi a) = (fun a -> rho =<< (gamma =<< phi a)) + + (ii'') (fun b -> rho =<< gamma b) =<< phi a = rho =<< (gamma =<< phi a) ++ +
+ (iii.1) (unit G') <=< γ = γ + when γ is a natural transformation from some FG' to MG' + ==> + (unit G') <=< gamma = gamma + when gamma is a function of type F(G'('t)) -> M(G'('t)) + + fun b -> (unit G') =<< gamma b = gamma + + (unit G') =<< gamma b = gamma b + + Let return be a polymorphic function mapping arguments of any + type 't to M('t). In particular, it maps arguments c of type + G'('t) to the monadic value (unit G') c, of type M(G'('t)). + + (iii.1'') return =<< gamma b = gamma b ++ +
+ (iii.2) γ = γ <=< (unit G) + when γ is a natural transformation from G to some MR'G + ==> + gamma = gamma <=< (unit G) + when gamma is a function of type G('t) -> M(R'(G('t))) + + gamma = fun b -> gamma =<< (unit G) b + + As above, return will map arguments b of type G('t) to the + monadic value (unit G) b, of type M(G('t)). + + gamma = fun b -> gamma =<< return b + + (iii.2'') gamma b = gamma =<< return b +-The composite morphisms said here to be identical are morphisms from the type C1 to the type M(C2). +Summarizing (ii''), (iii.1''), (iii.2''), these are the monadic laws as usually stated in the functional programming literature: +* `fun b -> rho =<< gamma b) =<< phi a = rho =<< (gamma =<< phi a)` + Usually written reversed, and with a monadic variable `u` standing in + for `phi a`: -In functional programming, instead of working with natural transformations we work with "monadic values" and polymorphic functions "into the monad" in question. + `u >>= (fun b -> gamma b >>= rho) = (u >>= gamma) >>= rho` -For an example of the latter, let φ be a function that takes arguments of some (schematic, polymorphic) type C1 and yields results of some (schematic, polymorphic) type M(C2). An example with M being the list monad, and C2 being the tuple type schema int * C1: +* `return =<< gamma b = gamma b` - let φ = fun c → [(1,c), (2,c)] + Usually written reversed, and with `u` standing in for `gamma b`: -φ is polymorphic: when you apply it to the int 0 you get a result of type "list of int * int": [(1,0), (2,0)]. When you apply it to the char 'e' you get a result of type "list of int * char": [(1,'e'), (2,'e')]. + `u >>= return = u` -However, to keep things simple, we'll work instead with functions whose type is settled. So instead of the polymorphic φ, we'll work with (φ : C1 → M(int * C1)). This only accepts arguments of type C1. For generality, I'll talk of functions with the type (φ : C1 → M(C1')), where we assume that C1' is a function of C1. +* `gamma b = gamma =<< return b` -A "monadic value" is any member of a type M(C1), for any type C1. For example, a list is a monadic value for the list monad. We can think of these monadic values as the result of applying some function (φ : C1 → M(C1')) to an argument of type C1. + Usually written reversed: + `return b >>= gamma = gamma b` +