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 _
and of the `map` that goes together with it.
+
* ***MapNable*** (in Haskelese, "Applicatives") A Mappable box type is *MapNable*
if there are in addition `map2`, `mid`, and `mapply`. (Given either
of `map2` and `mapply`, you can define the other, and also `map`.
Moreover, with `map2` in hand, `map3`, `map4`, ... `mapN` are easily definable.) These
-have to obey the following MapN Laws:
+ have to obey the following MapN Laws:
+
+ TODO LAWS
* ***Monad*** (or "Composables") A MapNable box type is a *Monad* if there
@@ -137,79 +165,82 @@ If you have any of `mcomp`, `mpmoc`, `mbind`, or `join`, you can use them to def
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.
+Here are some interdefinitions: TODO
+
+Names in Haskell: TODO
-## Examples
+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,
-consider the identity box type Id: `α`. So if `α` is type `bool`,
-then a boxed `α` is ... a `bool`. In terms of the box analogy, the
-Identity box type is a completely invisible box. With the following
-definitions
+consider the Identity box type: `α`. So if `α` is type `bool`,
+then a boxed `α` is ... a `bool`. That is, α = α
.
+In terms of the box analogy, the Identity box type is a completely invisible box. With the following
+definitions:
mid â¡ \p. p
mcomp â¡ \f g x.f (g x)
Identity is a monad. Here is a demonstration that the laws hold:
- mcomp mid k == (\fgx.f(gx)) (\p.p) k
- ~~> \x.(\p.p)(kx)
- ~~> \x.kx
- ~~> k
- mcomp k mid == (\fgx.f(gx)) k (\p.p)
- ~~> \x.k((\p.p)x)
- ~~> \x.kx
- ~~> k
- mcomp (mcomp j k) l == mcomp ((\fgx.f(gx)) j k) l
- ~~> mcomp (\x.j(kx)) l
- == (\fgx.f(gx)) (\x.j(kx)) l
- ~~> \x.(\x.j(kx))(lx)
- ~~> \x.j(k(lx))
- mcomp j (mcomp k l) == mcomp j ((\fgx.f(gx)) k l)
- ~~> mcomp j (\x.k(lx))
- == (\fgx.f(gx)) j (\x.k(lx))
- ~~> \x.j((\x.k(lx)) x)
- ~~> \x.j(k(lx))
-
-Id is the favorite monad of mimes.
+ mcomp mid k â¡ (\fgx.f(gx)) (\p.p) k
+ ~~> \x.(\p.p)(kx)
+ ~~> \x.kx
+ ~~> k
+ mcomp k mid â¡ (\fgx.f(gx)) k (\p.p)
+ ~~> \x.k((\p.p)x)
+ ~~> \x.kx
+ ~~> k
+ mcomp (mcomp j k) l â¡ mcomp ((\fgx.f(gx)) j k) l
+ ~~> mcomp (\x.j(kx)) l
+ â¡ (\fgx.f(gx)) (\x.j(kx)) l
+ ~~> \x.(\x.j(kx))(lx)
+ ~~> \x.j(k(lx))
+ mcomp j (mcomp k l) â¡ mcomp j ((\fgx.f(gx)) k l)
+ ~~> mcomp j (\x.k(lx))
+ â¡ (\fgx.f(gx)) j (\x.k(lx))
+ ~~> \x.j((\x.k(lx)) x)
+ ~~> \x.j(k(lx))
+
+The Identity monad is favored by mimes.
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]
-These three definitions of `mcomp` are all equivalent, and it is easy to see that they obey the monad laws (see exercises).
+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
--------------
+## Safe division ##
Integer division presupposes that its second argument
(the divisor) is not zero, upon pain of presupposition failure.
@@ -244,14 +275,13 @@ val safe_div : int -> int -> int option = fun
# safe_div 12 0;;
- : int option = None
# safe_div (safe_div 12 2) 3;;
-# safe_div (safe_div 12 2) 3;;
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Error: This expression has type int option
but an expression was expected of type int
*)
-This starts off well: dividing 12 by 2, no problem; dividing 12 by 0,
+This starts off well: dividing `12` by `2`, no problem; dividing `12` by `0`,
just the behavior we were hoping for. But we want to be able to use
the output of the safe-division function as input for further division
operations. So we have to jack up the types of the inputs:
@@ -259,10 +289,11 @@ operations. So we have to jack up the types of the inputs:
let safe_div2 (u:int option) (v:int option) =
match u with
- None -> None
- | Some x -> (match v with
- Some 0 -> None
- | Some y -> Some (x / y));;
+ | None -> None
+ | Some x ->
+ (match v with
+ | Some 0 -> None
+ | Some y -> Some (x / y));;
(*
val safe_div2 : int option -> int option -> int option =
@@ -275,8 +306,8 @@ val safe_div2 : int option -> int option -> int option =
*)
-Beautiful, just what we need: now we can try to divide by anything we
-want, without fear that we're going to trigger any system errors.
+Calling the function now involves some extra verbosity, but it gives us what we need: now we can try to divide by anything we
+want, without fear that we're going to trigger system errors.
I prefer to line up the `match` alternatives by using OCaml's
built-in tuple type:
@@ -284,15 +315,15 @@ built-in tuple type:
let safe_div2 (u:int option) (v:int option) =
match (u, v) with
- | (None, _) -> None
- | (_, None) -> None
- | (_, Some 0) -> None
- | (Some x, Some y) -> Some (x / y);;
+ | (None, _) -> None
+ | (_, None) -> None
+ | (_, Some 0) -> None
+ | (Some x, Some y) -> Some (x / y);;
So far so good. But what if we want to combine division with
other arithmetic operations? We need to make those other operations
-aware of the possibility that one of their arguments has triggered a
+aware of the possibility that one of their arguments has already triggered a
presupposition failure:
@@ -315,42 +346,36 @@ This works, but is somewhat disappointing: the `safe_add` operation
doesn't trigger any presupposition of its own, so it is a shame that
it needs to be adjusted because someone else might make trouble.
-But we can automate the adjustment. The standard way in OCaml,
-Haskell, and other functional programming languages, is to use the monadic
-`bind` operator, `>>=`. (The name "bind" is not well chosen from our
-perspective, but this is too deeply entrenched by now.) As mentioned above,
-there needs to be a different `>>=` operator for each Monad or box type you're working with.
+But we can automate the adjustment, using the monadic machinery we introduced above.
+As we said, there needs to be different `>>=`, `map2` and so on operations for each
+monad or box type we're working with.
Haskell finesses this by "overloading" the single symbol `>>=`; you can just input that
symbol and it will calculate from the context of the surrounding type constraints what
-monad you must have meant. In OCaml, the `>>=` or `bind` operator is not pre-defined, but we will
+monad you must have meant. In OCaml, the monadic operators are not pre-defined, but we will
give you a library that has definitions for all the standard monads, as in Haskell.
-For now, though, we will define our `bind` operation by hand:
+For now, though, we will define our `>>=` and `map2` operations by hand:
-let bind (u: int option) (f: int -> (int option)) =
+let (>>=) (u : 'a option) (j : 'a -> 'b option) : 'b option =
match u with
- | None -> None
- | Some x -> f x;;
+ | None -> None
+ | Some x -> j x;;
-let safe_add3 (u: int option) (v: int option) =
- bind u (fun x -> bind v (fun y -> Some (x + y)));;
+let map2 (f : 'a -> 'b -> 'c) (u : 'a option) (v : 'b option) : 'c option =
+ u >>= (fun x -> v >>= (fun y -> Some (f x y)));;
-(* This is really just `map2 (+)`, using the `map2` operation that corresponds to
- definition of `bind`. *)
+let safe_add3 = map2 (+);; (* that was easy *)
let safe_div3 (u: int option) (v: int option) =
- bind u (fun x -> bind v (fun y -> if 0 = y then None else Some (x / y)));;
-
-(* This goes back to some of the simplicity of the original safe_div, without the complexity
- introduced by safe_div2. *)
+ u >>= (fun x -> v >>= (fun y -> if 0 = y then None else Some (x / y)));;
-The above definitions look even simpler if you focus on the fact that `safe_add3` can be written as simply `map2 (+)`, and that `safe_div3` could be written as `u >>= fun x -> v >>= fun y -> if 0 = y then None else Some (x / y)`. Haskell has an even more user-friendly notation for this, namely:
+Haskell has an even more user-friendly notation for defining `safe_div3`, namely:
safe_div3 :: Maybe Int -> Maybe Int -> Maybe Int
safe_div3 u v = do {x <- u;
y <- v;
- if 0 == y then Nothing else return (x `div` y)}
+ if 0 == y then Nothing else Just (x `div` y)}
Let's see our new functions in action:
@@ -369,12 +394,13 @@ Compare the new definitions of `safe_add3` and `safe_div3` closely: the definiti
for `safe_add3` shows what it looks like to equip an ordinary operation to
survive in dangerous presupposition-filled world. Note that the new
definition of `safe_add3` does not need to test whether its arguments are
-None objects or real numbers---those details are hidden inside of the
+`None` values or real numbers---those details are hidden inside of the
`bind` function.
-The definition of `safe_div3` shows exactly what extra needs to be said in
-order to trigger the no-division-by-zero presupposition. Here, too, we don't
-need to keep track of what presuppositions may have already failed
+Note also that our definition of `safe_div3` recovers some of the simplicity of
+the original `safe_div`, without the complexity introduced by `safe_div2`. We now
+add exactly what extra is needed to track the no-division-by-zero presupposition. Here, too, we don't
+need to keep track of what other presuppositions may have already failed
for whatever reason on our inputs.
(Linguistics note: Dividing by zero is supposed to feel like a kind of
@@ -390,5 +416,5 @@ theory of accommodation, and a theory of the situations in which
material within the sentence can satisfy presuppositions for other
material that otherwise would trigger a presupposition violation; but,
not surprisingly, these refinements will require some more
-sophisticated techniques than the super-simple Option monad.)
+sophisticated techniques than the super-simple Option/Maybe monad.)