In the first, `P` has become `int` and `Q` has become `bool`. (The boxed type <code><u>Q</u></code> is <code><u>bool</u></code>).
Note that the left-hand schema `P` is permitted to itself be a boxed type. That is, where
-if `α list` is our box type, we can write the second arrow as
+if `α list` is our box type, we can write the second type as:
-<code><u>int</u> -> <u>Q</u></code>
+<code><u>int</u> -> <u>int list</u></code>
As semanticists, you are no doubt familiar with the debates between those who insist that propositions are sets of worlds and those who insist they are context change potentials. We hope to show you, in coming weeks, that propositions are (certain sorts of) Kleisli arrows. But this doesn't really compete with the other proposals; it is a generalization of them. Both of the other proposed structures can be construed as specific Kleisli arrows.
<code><=< or mcomp : (Q -> <u>R</u>) -> (P -> <u>Q</u>) -> (P -> <u>R</u>)</code>
-<code>>=> or mpmoc (flip mcomp): (P -> <u>Q</u>) -> (Q -> <u>R</u>) -> (P -> <u>R</u>)</code>
+<code>>=> (flip mcomp, should we call it mpmoc?): (P -> <u>Q</u>) -> (Q -> <u>R</u>) -> (P -> <u>R</u>)</code>
<code>>>= or mbind : (<u>Q</u>) -> (Q -> <u>R</u>) -> (<u>R</u>)</code>
-<code>=<< or mdnib (flip mbind) (<u>Q</u>) -> (Q -> <u>R</u>) -> (<u>R</u>)</code>
+<code>=<< (flip mbind, should we call it mdnib?) (Q -> <u>R</u>) -> (<u>Q</u>) -> (<u>R</u>)</code>
<code>join: <span class="box2">P</span> -> <u>P</u></code>
if there is a `map` function defined for that box type with the type given above. This
has to obey the following Map Laws:
- TODO LAWS
+ <code>map (id : α -> α) = (id : <u>α</u> -> <u>α</u>)</code>
+ <code>map (g ○ f) = (map g) ○ (map f)</code>
+
+ Essentially these say that `map` is a homomorphism from `(α -> β, ○, id)` to <code>(<u>α</u> -> <u>β</u>, ○', id')</code>, where `○'` and `id'` are `○` and `id` restricted to arguments of type <code><u>_</u></code>. That might be hard to digest because it's so abstract. Think of the following concrete example: if you take a `α list` (that's our <code><u>α</u></code>), and apply `id` to each of its elements, that's the same as applying `id` to the list itself. That's the first law. And if you apply the composition of functions `g ○ f` to each of the list's elements, that's the same as first applying `f` to each of the elements, and then going through the elements of the resulting list and applying `g` to each of those elements. That's the second law. These laws obviously hold for our familiar notion of `map` in relation to lists.
+
* ***MapNable*** (in Haskelese, "Applicatives") A Mappable box type is *MapNable*
if there are in addition `map2`, `mid`, and `mapply`. (Given either