<code>>>= or mbind : (<u>Q</u>) -> (Q -> <u>R</u>) -> (<u>R</u>)</code>
-<code>=<< (flip mbind, should we call it mdnib?) (<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>
+In the class handout, we gave the types for `>=>` twice, and once was correct but the other was a typo. The above is the correct typing.
+
+Haskell's name "bind" for `>>=` is not well chosen from our perspective, but this is too deeply entrenched by now. We've at least preprended an `m` to the front of it.
+
+Haskell's names "return" and "pure" for `mid` are even less well chosen, and we think it will be clearer in our discussion to use a different name. (Also, in other theoretical contexts this notion goes by other names, anyway, like `unit` or `η` --- having nothing to do with `η`-reduction in the Lambda Calculus.) In the handout we called `mid` `𝟭`. But now we've decided that `mid` is better. (Think of it as "m" plus "identity", not as the start of "midway".)
+
The menagerie isn't quite as bewildering as you might suppose. Many of these will
be interdefinable. For example, here is how `mcomp` and `mbind` are related: <code>k <=< j ≡
\a. (j a >>= k)</code>.
-In most cases of interest, instances of these systems of functions will provide
-certain useful guarantees.
+We will move freely back and forth between using `>=>` and using `<=<` (aka `mcomp`), which
+is just `>=>` with its arguments flipped. `<=<` has the virtue that it corresponds more
+closely to the ordinary mathematical symbol `○`. But `>=>` has the virtue
+that its types flow more naturally from left to right.
+
+These functions come together in several systems, and have to be defined in a way that coheres with the other functions in the system:
* ***Mappable*** (in Haskelese, "Functors") At the most general level, box types are *Mappable*
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 the algebra of `(universe α -> β, operation ○, elsment id)` to that of <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.
+
+ > <small>As mentioned at the top of the page, in Category Theory presentations of monads they usually talk about "endofunctors", which are mappings from a Category to itself. In the uses they make of this notion, the endofunctors combine the role of a box type <code><u>_</u></code> and of the `map` that goes together with it.</small>
+
* ***MapNable*** (in Haskelese, "Applicatives") A Mappable box type is *MapNable*
if there are in addition `map2`, `mid`, and `mapply`. (Given either
TODO LAWS
-* ***Monad*** (or "Composables") A MapNable box type is a *Monad* if there
+* ***Monad*** (or "Composables") A MapNable box type is a *Monad* if there
is in addition an associative `mcomp` having `mid` as its left and
right identity. That is, the following Monad Laws must hold:
- mcomp (mcomp j k) l (that is, (j <=< k) <=< l) = mcomp j (mcomp k l)
- mcomp mid k (that is, mid <=< k) = k
- mcomp k mid (that is, k <=< mid) = k
+ mcomp (mcomp j k) l (that is, (j <=< k) <=< l) == mcomp j (mcomp k l)
+ mcomp mid k (that is, mid <=< k) == k
+ mcomp k mid (that is, k <=< mid) == k
+
+ You could just as well express the Monad laws using `>=>`:
+
+ l >=> (k >=> j) == (l >=> k) >-> j
+ k >=> mid == k
+ mid >=> k == k
+
+ If you have any of `mcomp`, `mpmoc`, `mbind`, or `join`, you can use them to define the others. Also, with these functions you can define `m$` and `map2` from *MapNables*. So with Monads, all you really need to get the whole system of functions are a definition of `mid`, on the one hand, and one of `mcomp`, `mbind`, or `join`, on the other.
+
+ In practice, you will often work with `>>=`. In the Haskell manuals, they express the Monad Laws using `>>=` instead of the composition operators. This looks similar, but doesn't have the same symmetry:
+
+ u >>= (\a -> k a >>= j) == (u >>= k) >>= j
+ u >>= mid == u
+ mid a >>= k == k a
+
+ Also, Haskell calls `mid` `return` or `pure`, but we've stuck to our terminology in this context.
+
+ > <small>In Category Theory discussion, the Monad Laws are instead expressed in terms of `join` (which they call `μ`) and `mid` (which they call `η`). These are assumed to be "natural transformations" for their box type, which means that they satisfy these equations with that box type's `map`:
+ > <pre>map f ○ mid == mid ○ f<br>map f ○ join == join ○ map (map f)</pre>
+ > The Monad Laws then take the form:
+ > <pre>join ○ (map join) == join ○ join<br>join ○ mid == id == join ○ map mid</pre>
+ > Or, as the Category Theorist would state it, where `M` is the endofunctor that takes us from type `α` to type <code><u>α</u></code>:
+ > <pre>μ ○ M(μ) == μ ○ μ<br>μ ○ η = id == μ ○ M(η)</pre></small>
-If you have any of `mcomp`, `mpmoc`, `mbind`, or `join`, you can use them to define the others.
-Also, with these functions you can define `m$` and `map2` from *MapNables*. So all you really need
-are a definition of `mid`, on the one hand, and one of `mcomp`, `mbind`, or `join`, on the other.
Here are some interdefinitions: TODO
Names in Haskell: TODO
-The name "bind" is not well chosen from our perspective, but this is too deeply entrenched by now.
-
## Examples ##
To take a trivial (but, as we will see, still useful) example,
To take a slightly less trivial (and even more useful) example,
consider the box type `α list`, with the following operations:
- mid: α -> [α]
+ mid : α -> [α]
mid a = [a]
- mcomp: (β -> [γ]) -> (α -> [β]) -> (α -> [γ])
- mcomp f g a = concat (map f (g a))
- = foldr (\b -> \gs -> (f b) ++ gs) [] (g a)
- = [c | b <- g a, c <- f b]
+ mcomp : (β -> [γ]) -> (α -> [β]) -> (α -> [γ])
+ mcomp k j a = concat (map k (j a)) = List.flatten (List.map k (j a))
+ = foldr (\b ks -> (k b) ++ ks) [] (j a) = List.fold_right (fun b ks -> List.append (k b) ks) [] (j a)
+ = [c | b <- j a, c <- k b]
-The last three definitions of `mcomp` are all equivalent, and it is easy to see that they obey the monad laws (see exercises TODO).
+In the first two definitions of `mcomp`, we give the definition first in Haskell and then in the equivalent OCaml. The three different definitions of `mcomp` (one for each line) are all equivalent, and it is easy to show that they obey the Monad Laws. (You will do this in the homework.)
-In words, `mcomp f g a` feeds the `a` (which has type `α`) to `g`, which returns a list of `β`s;
-each `β` in that list is fed to `f`, which returns a list of `γ`s. The
+In words, `mcomp k j a` feeds the `a` (which has type `α`) to `j`, which returns a list of `β`s;
+each `β` in that list is fed to `k`, which returns a list of `γ`s. The
final result is the concatenation of those lists of `γ`s.
For example:
- let f b = [b, b+1] in
- let g a = [a*a, a+a] in
- mcomp f g 7 ==> [49, 50, 14, 15]
+ let j a = [a*a, a+a] in
+ let k b = [b, b+1] in
+ mcomp k j 7 ==> [49, 50, 14, 15]
-`g 7` produced `[49, 14]`, which after being fed through `f` gave us `[49, 50, 14, 15]`.
+`j 7` produced `[49, 14]`, which after being fed through `k` gave us `[49, 50, 14, 15]`.
Contrast that to `m$` (`mapply`, which operates not on two *box-producing functions*, but instead on two *values of a boxed type*, one containing functions to be applied to the values in the other box, via some predefined scheme. Thus:
- let gs = [(\a->a*a),(\a->a+a)] in
+ let js = [(\a->a*a),(\a->a+a)] in
let xs = [7, 5] in
- mapply gs xs ==> [49, 25, 14, 10]
+ mapply js xs ==> [49, 25, 14, 10]
-As we illustrated in class, there are clear patterns shared between lists and option types and trees, so perhaps you can see why people want to identify the general structures. But it probably isn't obvious yet why it would be useful to do so. To a large extent, this will only emerge over the next few classes. But we'll begin to demonstrate the usefulness of these patterns by talking through a simple example, that uses the monadic functions of the Option/Maybe box type.
+As we illustrated in class, there are clear patterns shared between lists and option types and trees, so perhaps you can see why people want to figure out the general structures. But it probably isn't obvious yet why it would be useful to do so. To a large extent, this will only emerge over the next few classes. But we'll begin to demonstrate the usefulness of these patterns by talking through a simple example, that uses the monadic functions of the Option/Maybe box type.
## Safe division ##