of monads, followed by instances of monads from the philosophical and
linguistics literature.
-> <small>After you've read this once and are coming back to re-read it to try to digest the details further, the "endofunctors" that slogan is talking about are the boxing operations. Their "monoidal" character is captured in the Monad Laws, where a "monoid"---don't confuse with a mon*ad*---is a simpler algebraic notion, meaning a universe with some associative operation that has an identity. For advanced study, here are some further links on the relation between monads as we're working with them and monads as they appear in category theory:
+> <small>After you've read this once and are coming back to re-read it to try to digest the details further, the "endofunctors" that slogan is talking about are a combination of our boxes and their associated maps. Their "monoidal" character is captured in the Monad Laws, where a "monoid"---don't confuse with a mon*ad*---is a simpler algebraic notion, meaning a universe with some associative operation that has an identity. For advanced study, here are some further links on the relation between monads as we're working with them and monads as they appear in category theory:
[1](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_category_theory)
[2](http://lambda1.jimpryor.net/advanced_topics/monads_in_category_theory/)
[3](http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Haskell/Category_theory)
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>.
+
* ***MapNable*** (in Haskelese, "Applicatives") A Mappable box type is *MapNable*
if there are in addition `map2`, `mid`, and `mapply`. (Given either