Don't understand notation of morphisms in Monoid definitionWhat is Applicative Functor definition from the category theory POV?Examples of monoids/semigroups in programmingA monad is just a monoid in the category of endofunctors, what's the problem?“What part of Hindley-Milner do you not understand?”If “List” is a monoid, what is its “set”?A little category theoryWhat is the category-theoretical basis for the requirement that the Haskell “id” function must return the same value as passed in?Is my understanding of monoid valid?Why is `pure` only required for Applicative and not already for Functor?Free group monadHow is “a monoid on applicative functors” different than “a monoid in the category of endofunctors”?
Of strange atmospheres - the survivable but unbreathable
In general, would I need to season a meat when making a sauce?
Where have Brexit voters gone?
Sankey diagram: not getting the hang of it
Is it true that cut time means "play twice as fast as written"?
Can I connect my older mathematica front-end to the free wolfram engine?
Should one buy new hardware after a system compromise?
Can the product of any two aperiodic functions which are defined on the entire number line be periodic?
Make 24 using exactly three 3s
Alternatives to achieve certain output format
Why do Russians almost not use verbs of possession akin to "have"?
Best material to absorb as much light as possible
How to attach cable mounting points to a bicycle frame?
A steel cutting sword?
Do I need full recovery mode when I have multiple daily backup?
Find the three digit Prime number P from the given unusual relationships
Did 20% of US soldiers in Vietnam use heroin, 95% of whom quit afterwards?
Can a British citizen living in France vote in both France and Britain in the European Elections?
How to cut a climbing rope?
Count Even Digits In Number
Is it rude to call a professor by their last name with no prefix in a non-academic setting?
Is Jon Snow the last of his House?
Specific alignment within beginalign environment
Is there an online tool which supports shared writing?
Don't understand notation of morphisms in Monoid definition
What is Applicative Functor definition from the category theory POV?Examples of monoids/semigroups in programmingA monad is just a monoid in the category of endofunctors, what's the problem?“What part of Hindley-Milner do you not understand?”If “List” is a monoid, what is its “set”?A little category theoryWhat is the category-theoretical basis for the requirement that the Haskell “id” function must return the same value as passed in?Is my understanding of monoid valid?Why is `pure` only required for Applicative and not already for Functor?Free group monadHow is “a monoid on applicative functors” different than “a monoid in the category of endofunctors”?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box;
I'm trying to understand what Monoid
is from a category theory perspective, but I'm a bit confused with the notation used to describe it. Here is Wikipedia:
In category theory, a monoid (or monoid object) (M, μ, η) in a monoidal category (C, ⊗, I) is an object M together with two morphisms
μ: M ⊗ M → M called multiplication,
η: I → M called unit
My confusion is about the morphism notation. Why is the binary operation ⊗
a part of the morphism notation? My understanding of a morphism is that it's a kind of function that can map from one type to another (domain to codomain), like M → M
. Why is the operation ⊗
a part of the domain in the definition? The second confusion is about I
. Why is I
a domain? There is no I
object in a Monoid
at all. It's just a neutral element of the object M
.
I understand that Monoid
is a category with one object, an identity morphism, and a binary operation defined on this object, but the notation makes me think that I don't understand something.
Is M ⊗ M
somehow related to the cartesian product, so that the domain of the morphism is defined as M x M
?
Edit: I got a really helpful answer for my question on the Mathematics Stack Exchange.
haskell category-theory monoids
|
show 3 more comments
I'm trying to understand what Monoid
is from a category theory perspective, but I'm a bit confused with the notation used to describe it. Here is Wikipedia:
In category theory, a monoid (or monoid object) (M, μ, η) in a monoidal category (C, ⊗, I) is an object M together with two morphisms
μ: M ⊗ M → M called multiplication,
η: I → M called unit
My confusion is about the morphism notation. Why is the binary operation ⊗
a part of the morphism notation? My understanding of a morphism is that it's a kind of function that can map from one type to another (domain to codomain), like M → M
. Why is the operation ⊗
a part of the domain in the definition? The second confusion is about I
. Why is I
a domain? There is no I
object in a Monoid
at all. It's just a neutral element of the object M
.
I understand that Monoid
is a category with one object, an identity morphism, and a binary operation defined on this object, but the notation makes me think that I don't understand something.
Is M ⊗ M
somehow related to the cartesian product, so that the domain of the morphism is defined as M x M
?
Edit: I got a really helpful answer for my question on the Mathematics Stack Exchange.
haskell category-theory monoids
5
Do you understand what monoid is from a set theory perspective? Definitions just are -- there's little answer that can be given to "why is the definition that way" other than "because we observe there are a bunch of things we want to talk about uniformly that are that way". So I can't really imagine answering that question sensibly. But I could imagine plausibly answering "How does this definition correspond with the various parts of the set theory definition?".
– Daniel Wagner
May 18 at 15:58
Okay. Since your (now deleted) comment says you grok the set theory definition, when I get back from lunch if there's no answer yet I'll write up a description of how the parts of the two definitions correspond; and the connection to the category with one object that's induced by the definition.
– Daniel Wagner
May 18 at 16:02
@daniel-wanger Yes, I understand what monoid is from set theory (at least the main idea). I even have some "non-stable" understanding of what it is in category theory. The main problem for me now (at least I think it's the main one)) is that I don't understand how to read notations. Is there kind of rule that say that on the left side (domain) there can be object only?. Because definition like thisI -> M
looks very strange for me. Like it's morphism from objectI
(which is not object) toM
. OrM ⊗ M
is kind of domain. But I would really appreciated for any answer.
– Bogdan Vakulenko
May 18 at 16:25
8
Warning! There are different but related notions at work! A category with one object corresponds to the traditional notion of a monoid (e.g., the ways you can get from where you are to where you are by hopping on the spot). The notion of monoidal category is something else: they can have much more interesting collections of objects in which (X) and I induce monoid-like structure (the way (,) on Haskell types is associative and absorbs () up to isomorphism).
– pigworker
May 18 at 16:33
3
The words "monoidal category" are essential, and it's where these operators you are asking about come from. You seem to be ignoring them.
– luqui
May 18 at 17:56
|
show 3 more comments
I'm trying to understand what Monoid
is from a category theory perspective, but I'm a bit confused with the notation used to describe it. Here is Wikipedia:
In category theory, a monoid (or monoid object) (M, μ, η) in a monoidal category (C, ⊗, I) is an object M together with two morphisms
μ: M ⊗ M → M called multiplication,
η: I → M called unit
My confusion is about the morphism notation. Why is the binary operation ⊗
a part of the morphism notation? My understanding of a morphism is that it's a kind of function that can map from one type to another (domain to codomain), like M → M
. Why is the operation ⊗
a part of the domain in the definition? The second confusion is about I
. Why is I
a domain? There is no I
object in a Monoid
at all. It's just a neutral element of the object M
.
I understand that Monoid
is a category with one object, an identity morphism, and a binary operation defined on this object, but the notation makes me think that I don't understand something.
Is M ⊗ M
somehow related to the cartesian product, so that the domain of the morphism is defined as M x M
?
Edit: I got a really helpful answer for my question on the Mathematics Stack Exchange.
haskell category-theory monoids
I'm trying to understand what Monoid
is from a category theory perspective, but I'm a bit confused with the notation used to describe it. Here is Wikipedia:
In category theory, a monoid (or monoid object) (M, μ, η) in a monoidal category (C, ⊗, I) is an object M together with two morphisms
μ: M ⊗ M → M called multiplication,
η: I → M called unit
My confusion is about the morphism notation. Why is the binary operation ⊗
a part of the morphism notation? My understanding of a morphism is that it's a kind of function that can map from one type to another (domain to codomain), like M → M
. Why is the operation ⊗
a part of the domain in the definition? The second confusion is about I
. Why is I
a domain? There is no I
object in a Monoid
at all. It's just a neutral element of the object M
.
I understand that Monoid
is a category with one object, an identity morphism, and a binary operation defined on this object, but the notation makes me think that I don't understand something.
Is M ⊗ M
somehow related to the cartesian product, so that the domain of the morphism is defined as M x M
?
Edit: I got a really helpful answer for my question on the Mathematics Stack Exchange.
haskell category-theory monoids
haskell category-theory monoids
edited May 18 at 20:40
4castle
22.5k54475
22.5k54475
asked May 18 at 15:41
Bogdan VakulenkoBogdan Vakulenko
1,775218
1,775218
5
Do you understand what monoid is from a set theory perspective? Definitions just are -- there's little answer that can be given to "why is the definition that way" other than "because we observe there are a bunch of things we want to talk about uniformly that are that way". So I can't really imagine answering that question sensibly. But I could imagine plausibly answering "How does this definition correspond with the various parts of the set theory definition?".
– Daniel Wagner
May 18 at 15:58
Okay. Since your (now deleted) comment says you grok the set theory definition, when I get back from lunch if there's no answer yet I'll write up a description of how the parts of the two definitions correspond; and the connection to the category with one object that's induced by the definition.
– Daniel Wagner
May 18 at 16:02
@daniel-wanger Yes, I understand what monoid is from set theory (at least the main idea). I even have some "non-stable" understanding of what it is in category theory. The main problem for me now (at least I think it's the main one)) is that I don't understand how to read notations. Is there kind of rule that say that on the left side (domain) there can be object only?. Because definition like thisI -> M
looks very strange for me. Like it's morphism from objectI
(which is not object) toM
. OrM ⊗ M
is kind of domain. But I would really appreciated for any answer.
– Bogdan Vakulenko
May 18 at 16:25
8
Warning! There are different but related notions at work! A category with one object corresponds to the traditional notion of a monoid (e.g., the ways you can get from where you are to where you are by hopping on the spot). The notion of monoidal category is something else: they can have much more interesting collections of objects in which (X) and I induce monoid-like structure (the way (,) on Haskell types is associative and absorbs () up to isomorphism).
– pigworker
May 18 at 16:33
3
The words "monoidal category" are essential, and it's where these operators you are asking about come from. You seem to be ignoring them.
– luqui
May 18 at 17:56
|
show 3 more comments
5
Do you understand what monoid is from a set theory perspective? Definitions just are -- there's little answer that can be given to "why is the definition that way" other than "because we observe there are a bunch of things we want to talk about uniformly that are that way". So I can't really imagine answering that question sensibly. But I could imagine plausibly answering "How does this definition correspond with the various parts of the set theory definition?".
– Daniel Wagner
May 18 at 15:58
Okay. Since your (now deleted) comment says you grok the set theory definition, when I get back from lunch if there's no answer yet I'll write up a description of how the parts of the two definitions correspond; and the connection to the category with one object that's induced by the definition.
– Daniel Wagner
May 18 at 16:02
@daniel-wanger Yes, I understand what monoid is from set theory (at least the main idea). I even have some "non-stable" understanding of what it is in category theory. The main problem for me now (at least I think it's the main one)) is that I don't understand how to read notations. Is there kind of rule that say that on the left side (domain) there can be object only?. Because definition like thisI -> M
looks very strange for me. Like it's morphism from objectI
(which is not object) toM
. OrM ⊗ M
is kind of domain. But I would really appreciated for any answer.
– Bogdan Vakulenko
May 18 at 16:25
8
Warning! There are different but related notions at work! A category with one object corresponds to the traditional notion of a monoid (e.g., the ways you can get from where you are to where you are by hopping on the spot). The notion of monoidal category is something else: they can have much more interesting collections of objects in which (X) and I induce monoid-like structure (the way (,) on Haskell types is associative and absorbs () up to isomorphism).
– pigworker
May 18 at 16:33
3
The words "monoidal category" are essential, and it's where these operators you are asking about come from. You seem to be ignoring them.
– luqui
May 18 at 17:56
5
5
Do you understand what monoid is from a set theory perspective? Definitions just are -- there's little answer that can be given to "why is the definition that way" other than "because we observe there are a bunch of things we want to talk about uniformly that are that way". So I can't really imagine answering that question sensibly. But I could imagine plausibly answering "How does this definition correspond with the various parts of the set theory definition?".
– Daniel Wagner
May 18 at 15:58
Do you understand what monoid is from a set theory perspective? Definitions just are -- there's little answer that can be given to "why is the definition that way" other than "because we observe there are a bunch of things we want to talk about uniformly that are that way". So I can't really imagine answering that question sensibly. But I could imagine plausibly answering "How does this definition correspond with the various parts of the set theory definition?".
– Daniel Wagner
May 18 at 15:58
Okay. Since your (now deleted) comment says you grok the set theory definition, when I get back from lunch if there's no answer yet I'll write up a description of how the parts of the two definitions correspond; and the connection to the category with one object that's induced by the definition.
– Daniel Wagner
May 18 at 16:02
Okay. Since your (now deleted) comment says you grok the set theory definition, when I get back from lunch if there's no answer yet I'll write up a description of how the parts of the two definitions correspond; and the connection to the category with one object that's induced by the definition.
– Daniel Wagner
May 18 at 16:02
@daniel-wanger Yes, I understand what monoid is from set theory (at least the main idea). I even have some "non-stable" understanding of what it is in category theory. The main problem for me now (at least I think it's the main one)) is that I don't understand how to read notations. Is there kind of rule that say that on the left side (domain) there can be object only?. Because definition like this
I -> M
looks very strange for me. Like it's morphism from object I
(which is not object) to M
. Or M ⊗ M
is kind of domain. But I would really appreciated for any answer.– Bogdan Vakulenko
May 18 at 16:25
@daniel-wanger Yes, I understand what monoid is from set theory (at least the main idea). I even have some "non-stable" understanding of what it is in category theory. The main problem for me now (at least I think it's the main one)) is that I don't understand how to read notations. Is there kind of rule that say that on the left side (domain) there can be object only?. Because definition like this
I -> M
looks very strange for me. Like it's morphism from object I
(which is not object) to M
. Or M ⊗ M
is kind of domain. But I would really appreciated for any answer.– Bogdan Vakulenko
May 18 at 16:25
8
8
Warning! There are different but related notions at work! A category with one object corresponds to the traditional notion of a monoid (e.g., the ways you can get from where you are to where you are by hopping on the spot). The notion of monoidal category is something else: they can have much more interesting collections of objects in which (X) and I induce monoid-like structure (the way (,) on Haskell types is associative and absorbs () up to isomorphism).
– pigworker
May 18 at 16:33
Warning! There are different but related notions at work! A category with one object corresponds to the traditional notion of a monoid (e.g., the ways you can get from where you are to where you are by hopping on the spot). The notion of monoidal category is something else: they can have much more interesting collections of objects in which (X) and I induce monoid-like structure (the way (,) on Haskell types is associative and absorbs () up to isomorphism).
– pigworker
May 18 at 16:33
3
3
The words "monoidal category" are essential, and it's where these operators you are asking about come from. You seem to be ignoring them.
– luqui
May 18 at 17:56
The words "monoidal category" are essential, and it's where these operators you are asking about come from. You seem to be ignoring them.
– luqui
May 18 at 17:56
|
show 3 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
Is
M ⊗ M
some how related to cartesian product, so domain of the morphism is defined asM x M
?
Exactly. More specifically, we get those monoids that are expressed by the Monoid
class from base by picking Hask (the category with all Haskell types as objects and all Haskell functions as morphisms) as C, (,)
(the pair type constructor) as ⊗, and ()
(the unit type) as I. The signatures of μ and η, translated to Haskell, then become:
μ :: (M, M) -> M
η :: () -> M
By currying μ, and making use of how () -> M
functions are in one-to-one correspondence to M
values (all of them look like () -> m
for some m
), we get the familiar Monoid
methods:
mappend :: M -> M -> M
mempty :: M
Note that the categorical definition is far more general than just Monoid
. For instance, we might keep working in Hask while replacing (,)
and ()
with their duals, Either
and Void
, thus getting:
μ :: Either A A -> A
η :: Void -> A
Every Haskell type is a monoid in this particular manner (μ is either id id
, and η is absurd
).
Another example is taking C to be the category of Haskell Functor
s (with natural transformations between them -- which I will write as type f ~> g = forall a. f a -> g a
-- as morphisms), Compose
as ⊗, and Identity
as I:
-- Note the arrows here are ~>, and not ->
μ :: Compose M M ~> M
η :: Identity ~> M
These two are commonly written as:
-- "Inlining" the definitions of Compose, Identity, and ~>
join :: M (M a) -> M a
return :: a -> M a
In other words, a Monad
is a monoid in the category of Functor
s (which is the Hask-specific version of "a monad is a monoid in the category of endofucntors"). It is worth mentioning that, as in the other example, this is not the only way to get monoids out of that category (see the final paragraph of this answer for pointers -- the rest of it, in fact, might be relevant reading, as it discusses the notion of monoidal category).
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function ()
StackExchange.using("snippets", function ()
StackExchange.snippets.init();
);
);
, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f56200485%2fdont-understand-notation-of-morphisms-in-monoid-definition%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Is
M ⊗ M
some how related to cartesian product, so domain of the morphism is defined asM x M
?
Exactly. More specifically, we get those monoids that are expressed by the Monoid
class from base by picking Hask (the category with all Haskell types as objects and all Haskell functions as morphisms) as C, (,)
(the pair type constructor) as ⊗, and ()
(the unit type) as I. The signatures of μ and η, translated to Haskell, then become:
μ :: (M, M) -> M
η :: () -> M
By currying μ, and making use of how () -> M
functions are in one-to-one correspondence to M
values (all of them look like () -> m
for some m
), we get the familiar Monoid
methods:
mappend :: M -> M -> M
mempty :: M
Note that the categorical definition is far more general than just Monoid
. For instance, we might keep working in Hask while replacing (,)
and ()
with their duals, Either
and Void
, thus getting:
μ :: Either A A -> A
η :: Void -> A
Every Haskell type is a monoid in this particular manner (μ is either id id
, and η is absurd
).
Another example is taking C to be the category of Haskell Functor
s (with natural transformations between them -- which I will write as type f ~> g = forall a. f a -> g a
-- as morphisms), Compose
as ⊗, and Identity
as I:
-- Note the arrows here are ~>, and not ->
μ :: Compose M M ~> M
η :: Identity ~> M
These two are commonly written as:
-- "Inlining" the definitions of Compose, Identity, and ~>
join :: M (M a) -> M a
return :: a -> M a
In other words, a Monad
is a monoid in the category of Functor
s (which is the Hask-specific version of "a monad is a monoid in the category of endofucntors"). It is worth mentioning that, as in the other example, this is not the only way to get monoids out of that category (see the final paragraph of this answer for pointers -- the rest of it, in fact, might be relevant reading, as it discusses the notion of monoidal category).
add a comment |
Is
M ⊗ M
some how related to cartesian product, so domain of the morphism is defined asM x M
?
Exactly. More specifically, we get those monoids that are expressed by the Monoid
class from base by picking Hask (the category with all Haskell types as objects and all Haskell functions as morphisms) as C, (,)
(the pair type constructor) as ⊗, and ()
(the unit type) as I. The signatures of μ and η, translated to Haskell, then become:
μ :: (M, M) -> M
η :: () -> M
By currying μ, and making use of how () -> M
functions are in one-to-one correspondence to M
values (all of them look like () -> m
for some m
), we get the familiar Monoid
methods:
mappend :: M -> M -> M
mempty :: M
Note that the categorical definition is far more general than just Monoid
. For instance, we might keep working in Hask while replacing (,)
and ()
with their duals, Either
and Void
, thus getting:
μ :: Either A A -> A
η :: Void -> A
Every Haskell type is a monoid in this particular manner (μ is either id id
, and η is absurd
).
Another example is taking C to be the category of Haskell Functor
s (with natural transformations between them -- which I will write as type f ~> g = forall a. f a -> g a
-- as morphisms), Compose
as ⊗, and Identity
as I:
-- Note the arrows here are ~>, and not ->
μ :: Compose M M ~> M
η :: Identity ~> M
These two are commonly written as:
-- "Inlining" the definitions of Compose, Identity, and ~>
join :: M (M a) -> M a
return :: a -> M a
In other words, a Monad
is a monoid in the category of Functor
s (which is the Hask-specific version of "a monad is a monoid in the category of endofucntors"). It is worth mentioning that, as in the other example, this is not the only way to get monoids out of that category (see the final paragraph of this answer for pointers -- the rest of it, in fact, might be relevant reading, as it discusses the notion of monoidal category).
add a comment |
Is
M ⊗ M
some how related to cartesian product, so domain of the morphism is defined asM x M
?
Exactly. More specifically, we get those monoids that are expressed by the Monoid
class from base by picking Hask (the category with all Haskell types as objects and all Haskell functions as morphisms) as C, (,)
(the pair type constructor) as ⊗, and ()
(the unit type) as I. The signatures of μ and η, translated to Haskell, then become:
μ :: (M, M) -> M
η :: () -> M
By currying μ, and making use of how () -> M
functions are in one-to-one correspondence to M
values (all of them look like () -> m
for some m
), we get the familiar Monoid
methods:
mappend :: M -> M -> M
mempty :: M
Note that the categorical definition is far more general than just Monoid
. For instance, we might keep working in Hask while replacing (,)
and ()
with their duals, Either
and Void
, thus getting:
μ :: Either A A -> A
η :: Void -> A
Every Haskell type is a monoid in this particular manner (μ is either id id
, and η is absurd
).
Another example is taking C to be the category of Haskell Functor
s (with natural transformations between them -- which I will write as type f ~> g = forall a. f a -> g a
-- as morphisms), Compose
as ⊗, and Identity
as I:
-- Note the arrows here are ~>, and not ->
μ :: Compose M M ~> M
η :: Identity ~> M
These two are commonly written as:
-- "Inlining" the definitions of Compose, Identity, and ~>
join :: M (M a) -> M a
return :: a -> M a
In other words, a Monad
is a monoid in the category of Functor
s (which is the Hask-specific version of "a monad is a monoid in the category of endofucntors"). It is worth mentioning that, as in the other example, this is not the only way to get monoids out of that category (see the final paragraph of this answer for pointers -- the rest of it, in fact, might be relevant reading, as it discusses the notion of monoidal category).
Is
M ⊗ M
some how related to cartesian product, so domain of the morphism is defined asM x M
?
Exactly. More specifically, we get those monoids that are expressed by the Monoid
class from base by picking Hask (the category with all Haskell types as objects and all Haskell functions as morphisms) as C, (,)
(the pair type constructor) as ⊗, and ()
(the unit type) as I. The signatures of μ and η, translated to Haskell, then become:
μ :: (M, M) -> M
η :: () -> M
By currying μ, and making use of how () -> M
functions are in one-to-one correspondence to M
values (all of them look like () -> m
for some m
), we get the familiar Monoid
methods:
mappend :: M -> M -> M
mempty :: M
Note that the categorical definition is far more general than just Monoid
. For instance, we might keep working in Hask while replacing (,)
and ()
with their duals, Either
and Void
, thus getting:
μ :: Either A A -> A
η :: Void -> A
Every Haskell type is a monoid in this particular manner (μ is either id id
, and η is absurd
).
Another example is taking C to be the category of Haskell Functor
s (with natural transformations between them -- which I will write as type f ~> g = forall a. f a -> g a
-- as morphisms), Compose
as ⊗, and Identity
as I:
-- Note the arrows here are ~>, and not ->
μ :: Compose M M ~> M
η :: Identity ~> M
These two are commonly written as:
-- "Inlining" the definitions of Compose, Identity, and ~>
join :: M (M a) -> M a
return :: a -> M a
In other words, a Monad
is a monoid in the category of Functor
s (which is the Hask-specific version of "a monad is a monoid in the category of endofucntors"). It is worth mentioning that, as in the other example, this is not the only way to get monoids out of that category (see the final paragraph of this answer for pointers -- the rest of it, in fact, might be relevant reading, as it discusses the notion of monoidal category).
edited May 18 at 17:40
answered May 18 at 16:24
duplodeduplode
25.1k45296
25.1k45296
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f56200485%2fdont-understand-notation-of-morphisms-in-monoid-definition%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
5
Do you understand what monoid is from a set theory perspective? Definitions just are -- there's little answer that can be given to "why is the definition that way" other than "because we observe there are a bunch of things we want to talk about uniformly that are that way". So I can't really imagine answering that question sensibly. But I could imagine plausibly answering "How does this definition correspond with the various parts of the set theory definition?".
– Daniel Wagner
May 18 at 15:58
Okay. Since your (now deleted) comment says you grok the set theory definition, when I get back from lunch if there's no answer yet I'll write up a description of how the parts of the two definitions correspond; and the connection to the category with one object that's induced by the definition.
– Daniel Wagner
May 18 at 16:02
@daniel-wanger Yes, I understand what monoid is from set theory (at least the main idea). I even have some "non-stable" understanding of what it is in category theory. The main problem for me now (at least I think it's the main one)) is that I don't understand how to read notations. Is there kind of rule that say that on the left side (domain) there can be object only?. Because definition like this
I -> M
looks very strange for me. Like it's morphism from objectI
(which is not object) toM
. OrM ⊗ M
is kind of domain. But I would really appreciated for any answer.– Bogdan Vakulenko
May 18 at 16:25
8
Warning! There are different but related notions at work! A category with one object corresponds to the traditional notion of a monoid (e.g., the ways you can get from where you are to where you are by hopping on the spot). The notion of monoidal category is something else: they can have much more interesting collections of objects in which (X) and I induce monoid-like structure (the way (,) on Haskell types is associative and absorbs () up to isomorphism).
– pigworker
May 18 at 16:33
3
The words "monoidal category" are essential, and it's where these operators you are asking about come from. You seem to be ignoring them.
– luqui
May 18 at 17:56