-**Don't try to read this yet!!! Many substantial edits are still in process.
-Will be ready soon.**
-
Caveats
-------
I really don't know much category theory. Just enough to put this
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.
* finite strings of an alphabet `A`, with <code>⋆</code> being concatenation and `z` being the empty string
* all functions <code>X→X</code> over a set `X`, with <code>⋆</code> being composition and `z` being the identity function over `X`
-* the natural numbers with <code>⋆</code> 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 <code>⋆</code> be multiplication and `z` be `1`, we get different monoids over the same sets as in the previous item.
+* the natural numbers with <code>⋆</code> 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 <code>⋆</code> be multiplication and `z` be 1, we get different monoids over the same sets as in the previous item.
Categories
----------
(ii) composition of morphisms has to be associative
- (iii) every element E of the category has to have an identity
- morphism 1<sub>E</sub>, which is such that for every morphism f:C1→C2:
+ (iii) every element X of the category has to have an identity
+ morphism 1<sub>X</sub>, which is such that for every morphism f:C1→C2:
1<sub>C2</sub> ∘ f = f = f ∘ 1<sub>C1</sub>
</pre>
-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 <code>(S,⋆,z)</code> 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 <code>s3=s1⋆s2</code>. The identity morphism for the (single) category element `x` is the monoid's identity `z`.
+* any monoid <code>(S,⋆,z)</code> 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 <code>s3=s1⋆s2</code>. The identity morphism for the (single) category element `Q` is the monoid's identity `z`.
-* a **preorder** is a structure <code>(S, ≤)</code> 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 <code>x≤y</code> nor <code>y≤x</code>). It need not be anti-symmetric (that is, there may be members `s1`,`s2` of `S` such that <code>s1≤s2</code> and <code>s2≤s1</code> but `s1` and `s2` are not identical). Some examples:
+* a **preorder** is a structure <code>(S, ≤)</code> 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 <code>s1 ≤ s2</code> nor <code>s2 ≤ s1</code>). It need not be anti-symmetric (that is, there may be members `s1`,`s2` of `S` such that <code>s1 ≤ s2</code> and <code>s2 ≤ s1</code> 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 <code>(S,≤)</code> 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 <code>s1≤s2</code>.
+ Any pre-order <code>(S,≤)</code> 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 <code>s1 ≤ s2</code>.
Functors
And <code>(K η)</code> is a natural transformation from the (composite) functor `KG` to the (composite) functor `KH`, such that where `C1` is an element of category <b>C</b>, <code>(K η)[C1] = K(η[C1])</code>---that is, the morphism in <b>E</b> that `K` assigns to the morphism <code>η[C1]</code> of <b>D</b>.
-<code>(φ -v- η)</code> is a natural transformation from `G` to `J`; this is known as a "vertical composition". We will rely later on this, where <code>f:C1→C2</code>:
+<code>(φ -v- η)</code> is a natural transformation from `G` to `J`; this is known as a "vertical composition". For any morphism <code>f:C1→C2</code> in <b>C</b>:
<pre>
φ[C2] ∘ H(f) ∘ η[C1] = φ[C2] ∘ H(f) ∘ η[C1]
A **monad** is a structure consisting of an (endo)functor `M` from some category <b>C</b> to itself, along with some natural transformations, which we'll specify in a moment.
-Let `T` be a set of natural transformations <code>φ</code>, 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 <b>C</b>, <code>φ</code> 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, <code>φ</code> is a transformation from functor `F` to `MF'`, <code>γ</code> 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 transformations <code>φ</code>, each being between some arbitrary endofunctor `F` on <b>C</b> and another functor which is the composite `MF'` of `M` and another arbitrary endofunctor `F'` on <b>C</b>. That is, for each element `C1` in <b>C</b>, <code>φ</code> 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, <code>φ</code> is a transformation from functor `F` to `MF'`, <code>γ</code> 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 <b>C</b> 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 <b>C</b> 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.
-Let <code>φ</code> and <code>γ</code> 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 transformation <code>γ</code>. 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')`, <code>(M γ)</code>, and <code>φ</code>, and abbreviate it as follows:
+Let <code>φ</code> and <code>γ</code> 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 <code>(M γ)</code> will also be a natural transformation, formed by composing the functor `M` with the natural transformation <code>γ</code>. 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')`, <code>(M γ)</code>, and <code>φ</code>, and abbreviate it as follows. Since composition is associative I don't specify the order of composition on the rhs.
<pre>
γ <=< φ =def. ((join G') -v- (M γ) -v- φ)
</pre>
-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 members <code>φ</code> and <code>γ</code> of `T` to a composite natural transformation. (In functional programming, at least, this is called the "Kleisli composition operator". Sometimes its written <code>φ >=> γ</code> where that's the same as <code>γ <=< φ</code>.)
+In other words, `<=<` is a binary operator that takes us from two members <code>φ</code> and <code>γ</code> of `T` to a composite natural transformation. (In functional programming, at least, this is called the "Kleisli composition operator". Sometimes it's written <code>φ >=> γ</code> where that's the same as <code>γ <=< φ</code>.)
-φ is a transformation from `F` to `MF'` which = `MG`; `(M γ)` is a transformation from `MG` to `MMG'`; and `(join G')` is a transformation from `MMG'` to `MG'`. So the composite γ <=< φ will be a transformation from `F` to `MG'`, and so also eligible to be a member of `T`.
+<code>φ</code> is a transformation from `F` to `MF'`, where the latter = `MG`; <code>(M γ)</code> is a transformation from `MG` to `MMG'`; and `(join G')` is a transformation from `MMG'` to `MG'`. So the composite <code>γ <=< φ</code> 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:
+<pre>
(T, <=<, unit) constitute a monoid
+</pre>
+
+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, <code>γ <=< φ</code> isn't fully defined on `T`, but only when <code>φ</code> is a transformation to some `MF'` and <code>γ</code> is a transformation from `F'`. But wherever `<=<` is defined, the monoid laws must hold:
+
+<pre>
+ (i) γ <=< φ is also in T
+
+ (ii) (ρ <=< γ) <=< φ = ρ <=< (γ <=< φ)
-That's it. (Well, perhaps we're cheating a bit, because γ <=< φ isn't fully defined on `T`, but only when `F` is a functor to `MF'` and `G` is a functor from `F'`. But wherever `<=<` is defined, the monoid laws are satisfied:
+ (iii.1) unit <=< φ = φ
+ (here φ has to be a natural transformation to M(1C))
- (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.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)
+</pre>
-If φ is a natural transformation from `F` to `M(1C)` and γ is `(φ G')`, that is, a natural transformation from `PG` to `MG`, then we can extend (iii.1) as follows:
+If <code>φ</code> is a natural transformation from `F` to `M(1C)` and <code>γ</code> is <code>(φ G')</code>, that is, a natural transformation from `FG'` to `MG'`, then we can extend (iii.1) as follows:
+<pre>
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') <=< γ
+</pre>
-where as we said γ is a natural transformation from some `PG'` to `MG'`.
+where as we said <code>γ</code> is a natural transformation from some `FG'` to `MG'`.
-Similarly, if φ is a natural transformation from `1C` to `MF'`, and γ is `(φ G)`, that is, a natural transformation from `G` to `MF'G`, then we can extend (iii.2) as follows:
+Similarly, if <code>ρ</code> is a natural transformation from `1C` to `MR'`, and <code>γ</code> is <code>(ρ G)</code>, 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))
- ??
+<pre>
+ 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)
+</pre>
+
+where as we said <code>γ</code> is a natural transformation from `G` to some `MR'G`.
+
+Summarizing then, the monad laws can be expressed as:
-where as we said γ is a natural transformation from `G` to some `MF'G`.
+<pre>
+ 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
+</pre>
-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 `<=<`.
-(*
+<!--
P2. every element C1 of a category <b>C</b> has an identity morphism 1<sub>C1</sub> such that for every morphism f:C1→C2 in <b>C</b>: 1<sub>C2</sub> ∘ f = f = f ∘ 1<sub>C1</sub>.
P3. functors "preserve identity", that is for every element C1 in F's source category: F(1<sub>C1</sub>) = 1<sub>F(C1)</sub>.
-*)
+-->
+
+Let's remind ourselves of principles stated above:
+
+* composition of morphisms, functors, and natural compositions is associative
-Let's remind ourselves of some principles:
- * 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)
- * if η is a natural transformation from F to G, then for every f:C1→C2 in F and G's source category <b>C</b>: η[C2] ∘ F(f) = G(f) ∘ η[C1].
+* functors "distribute over composition", that is for any morphisms `f` and `g` in `F`'s source category: <code>F(g ∘ f) = F(g) ∘ F(f)</code>
+* if <code>η</code> is a natural transformation from `G` to `H`, then for every <code>f:C1→C2</code> in `G` and `H`'s source category <b>C</b>: <code>η[C2] ∘ G(f) = H(f) ∘ η[C1]</code>.
+
+* <code>(η F)[X] = η[F(X)]</code>
+
+* <code>(K η)[X] = K(η[X])</code>
+
+* <code>((φ -v- η) F) = ((φ F) -v- (η F))</code>
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 <b>C</b>, join[C1] will be a morphism from MM(C1) to M(C1). And for any morphism f:a→b in <b>C</b>:
+Recall that `join` is a natural transformation from the (composite) functor `MM` to `M`. So for elements `C1` in <b>C</b>, `join[C1]` will be a morphism from `MM(C1)` to `M(C1)`. And for any morphism <code>f:C1→C2</code> in <b>C</b>:
+
+<pre>
+ (1) join[C2] ∘ MM(f) = M(f) ∘ join[C1]
+</pre>
+
+Next, let <code>γ</code> be a transformation from `G` to `MG'`, and
+ consider the composite transformation <code>((join MG') -v- (MM γ))</code>.
+
+* <code>γ</code> assigns elements `C1` in <b>C</b> a morphism <code>γ\*:G(C1) → MG'(C1)</code>. <code>(MM γ)</code> is a transformation that instead assigns `C1` the morphism <code>MM(γ\*)</code>.
+
+* `(join MG')` is a transformation from `MM(MG')` to `M(MG')` that assigns `C1` the morphism `join[MG'(C1)]`.
- (1) join[b] ∘ MM(f) = M(f) ∘ join[a]
+Composing them:
-Next, consider the composite transformation ((join MG') -v- (MM γ)).
- γ is a transformation from G to MG', and assigns elements C1 in <b>C</b> a morphism γ*: G(C1) → MG'(C1). (MM γ) is a transformation that instead assigns C1 the morphism MM(γ*).
- (join MG') is a transformation from MMMG' to MMG' that assigns C1 the morphism join[MG'(C1)].
- Composing them:
+<pre>
(2) ((join MG') -v- (MM γ)) assigns to C1 the morphism join[MG'(C1)] ∘ MM(γ*).
+</pre>
-Next, consider the composite transformation ((M γ) -v- (join G)).
- (3) This assigns to C1 the morphism M(γ*) ∘ join[G(C1)].
+Next, consider the composite transformation <code>((M γ) -v- (join G))</code>:
-So for every element C1 of <b>C</b>:
+<pre>
+ (3) ((M γ) -v- (join G)) assigns to C1 the morphism M(γ*) ∘ join[G(C1)].
+</pre>
+
+So for every element `C1` of <b>C</b>:
+
+<pre>
((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]
+</pre>
+
+So our **(lemma 1)** is:
+
+<pre>
+ ((join MG') -v- (MM γ)) = ((M γ) -v- (join G)),
+ where as we said γ is a natural transformation from G to MG'.
+</pre>
+
-So our (lemma 1) is: ((join MG') -v- (MM γ)) = ((M γ) -v- (join G)), where γ is a transformation from G to MG'.
+Next recall that `unit` is a natural transformation from `1C` to `M`. So for elements `C1` in <b>C</b>, `unit[C1]` will be a morphism from `C1` to `M(C1)`. And for any morphism <code>f:C1→C2</code> in <b>C</b>:
+<pre>
+ (4) unit[C2] ∘ f = M(f) ∘ unit[C1]
+</pre>
-Next recall that unit is a natural transformation from 1C to M. So for elements C1 in <b>C</b>, unit[C1] will be a morphism from C1 to M(C1). And for any morphism f:a→b in <b>C</b>:
- (4) unit[b] ∘ f = M(f) ∘ unit[a]
+Next, consider the composite transformation <code>((M γ) -v- (unit G))</code>:
+
+<pre>
+ (5) ((M γ) -v- (unit G)) assigns to C1 the morphism M(γ*) ∘ unit[G(C1)].
+</pre>
-Next consider the composite transformation ((M γ) -v- (unit G)). (5) This assigns to C1 the morphism M(γ*) ∘ unit[G(C1)].
+Next, consider the composite transformation <code>((unit MG') -v- γ)</code>:
-Next consider the composite transformation ((unit MG') -v- γ). (6) This assigns to C1 the morphism unit[MG'(C1)] ∘ γ*.
+<pre>
+ (6) ((unit MG') -v- γ) assigns to C1 the morphism unit[MG'(C1)] ∘ γ*.
+</pre>
So for every element C1 of <b>C</b>:
+
+<pre>
((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]
+</pre>
-So our lemma (2) is: (((M γ) -v- (unit G)) = ((unit MG') -v- γ)), where γ is a transformation from G to MG'.
-
+So our **(lemma 2)** is:
-Finally, we substitute ((join G') -v- (M γ) -v- φ) for γ <=< φ in the monad laws. For simplicity, I'll omit the "-v-".
+<pre>
+ (((M γ) -v- (unit G)) = ((unit MG') -v- γ)),
+ where as we said γ is a natural transformation from G to MG'.
+</pre>
- 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:
- (i) γ <=< φ etc are also in T
- ==>
- (i') ((join G') (M γ) φ) etc are also in T
+Finally, we substitute <code>((join G') -v- (M γ) -v- φ)</code> for <code>γ <=< φ</code> in the monad laws. For simplicity, I'll omit the "-v-".
+<pre>
+ 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:
- (ii) (ρ <=< γ) <=< φ = ρ <=< (γ <=< φ)
+ (i) γ <=< φ etc are also in T
==>
- (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:
+ (i') ((join G') (M γ) φ) etc are also in T
+</pre>
- ((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)
+<pre>
+ (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)
- 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))
+</pre>
- (iii.1) (unit F') <=< φ = φ
+<pre>
+ (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
+</pre>
- (iii.2) φ = φ <=< (unit F)
+<pre>
+ (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 transformation
+</pre>
Collecting the results, our monad laws turn out in this format to be:
- 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:
+<pre>
+ 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
+</pre>
-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 <b>C</b> 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 <code>f:C1→C2</code> to functions <code>M(f):M(C1)→M(C2)</code>. This is also known as <code>lift<sub>M</sub> f</code> 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 <code>f:x→y</code> 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`:
+
+<pre>
+ let phi = fun ((_:char, x y) -> [(1,x,y),(2,x,y)]
+</pre>
+
+
+
+Now where `gamma` is another function of type <code>F'('t) → M(G'('t))</code>, we define:
+
+<pre>
+ gamma =<< phi a =def. ((join G') -v- (M gamma)) (phi a)
+ = ((join G') -v- (M gamma) -v- phi) a
+ = (gamma <=< phi) a
+</pre>
+
+Hence:
+
+<pre>
+ gamma <=< phi = fun a -> (gamma =<< phi a)
+</pre>
+
+`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:
+
+
+<pre>
+ 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))
+</pre>
+
+<pre>
+ (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)
+</pre>
+
+<pre>
+ (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
+</pre>
+
+<pre>
+ (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
-A natural transformation t assigns to each type C1 in <b>C</b> a morphism t[C1]: C1→M(C1) such that, for every f:C1→C2:
- t[C2] ∘ f = M(f) ∘ t[C1]
+ 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
+</pre>
-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`
+