Difference between revisions of "Hask"

From HaskellWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (→‎Hask: newlines)
(id is a function :))
(14 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
  +
'''Hask''' is the [[Category theory|category]] of Haskell types and functions.
−
'''Hask''' refers to a [[Category theory|category]] with types as objects and functions between them as morphisms. However, its use is ambiguous. Sometimes it refers to Haskell (''actual '''Hask'''''), and sometimes it refers to some subset of Haskell where no values are bottom and all functions terminate (''platonic '''Hask'''''). The reason for this is that platonic '''Hask''' has lots of nice properties that actual '''Hask''' does not, and is thus easier to reason in. There is a faithful functor from platonic '''Hask''' to actual '''Hask''' allowing programmers to think in the former to write code in the latter.
  
   
  +
The objects of '''Hask''' are Haskell types, and the morphisms from objects <hask>A</hask> to <hask>B</hask> are Haskell functions of type <hask>A -> B</hask>. The identity morphism for object <hask>A</hask> is <hask>id :: A -> A</hask>, and the composition of morphisms <hask>f</hask> and <hask>g</hask> is <hask>f . g = \x -> f (g x)</hask>.
⚫
== '''Hask''' ==
  
  +
  ⚫
== Is '''Hask''' even a category? ==
  +
  +
Consider:
  +
  +
<haskell>
  +
undef1 = undefined :: a -> b
  +
undef2 = \_ -> undefined
  +
</haskell>
  +
  +
Note that these are not the same value:
  +
  +
<haskell>
  +
seq undef1 () = undefined
  +
seq undef2 () = ()
  +
</haskell>
  +
  +
This might be a problem, because <hask>undef1 . id = undef2</hask>. In order to make '''Hask''' a category, we define two functions <hask>f</hask> and <hask>g</hask> as the same morphism if <hask>f x = g x</hask> for all <hask>x</hask>. Thus <hask>undef1</hask> and <hask>undef2</hask> are different ''values'', but the same ''morphism'' in '''Hask'''.
  +
  +
== '''Hask''' is not Cartesian closed ==
   
 
Actual '''Hask''' does not have sums, products, or an initial object, and <hask>()</hask> is not a terminal object. The Monad identities fail for almost all instances of the Monad class.
  
Actual '''Hask''' does not have sums, products, or an initial object, and <hask>()</hask> is not a terminal object. The Monad identities fail for almost all instances of the Monad class.
Line 12: Line 32:
 
! scope="col" | Sum
  
! scope="col" | Sum
 
! scope="col" | Product
  
! scope="col" | Product
  +
! scope="col" | Product
  +
|-
  +
! scope="row" | Type
  +
| <hask>data Empty</hask>
  +
| <hask>data () = ()</hask>
  +
| <hask>data Either a b
  +
= Left a | Right b</hask>
  +
| <hask>data (a,b) =
  +
(,) { fst :: a, snd :: b}</hask>
  +
| <hask>data P a b =
  +
P {fstP :: !a, sndP :: !b}</hask>
 
|-
  
|-
−
! scope="row" | Definition
 +
! scope="row" | Requirement
 
| There is a unique function
  
| There is a unique function
 
<br /><hask>u :: Empty -> r</hask>
  
<br /><hask>u :: Empty -> r</hask>
Line 23: Line 54:
   
 
there is a unique function
  
there is a unique function
−
<br /><hask>u :: Either a b -> r</hask>
 +
<hask>u :: Either a b -> r</hask>
   
 
such that:
  
such that:
−
<br /><hask>u . Left = f</hask>
 +
<hask>u . Left = f</hask>
 
<br /><hask>u . Right = g</hask>
  
<br /><hask>u . Right = g</hask>
 
| For any functions
  
| For any functions
Line 33: Line 64:
   
 
there is a unique function
  
there is a unique function
−
<br /><hask>u :: r -> (a,b)</hask>
 +
<hask>u :: r -> (a,b)</hask>
   
 
such that:
  
such that:
−
<br /><hask>fst . u = f</hask>
 +
<hask>fst . u = f</hask>
 
<br /><hask>snd . u = g</hask>
  
<br /><hask>snd . u = g</hask>
  +
| For any functions
  +
<br /><hask>f :: r -> a</hask>
  +
<br /><hask>g :: r -> b</hask>
  +
  +
there is a unique function
  +
<hask>u :: r -> P a b</hask>
  +
  +
such that:
  +
<hask>fstP . u = f</hask>
  +
<br /><hask>sndP . u = g</hask>
 
|-
  
|-
−
! scope="row" | Platonic candidate
 +
! scope="row" | Candidate
 
| <hask>u1 r = case r of {}</hask>
  
| <hask>u1 r = case r of {}</hask>
 
| <hask>u1 _ = ()</hask>
  
| <hask>u1 _ = ()</hask>
 
| <hask>u1 (Left a) = f a</hask>
  
| <hask>u1 (Left a) = f a</hask>
−
<hask>u1 (Right b) = g b</hask>
 +
<br /><hask>u1 (Right b) = g b</hask>
 
| <hask>u1 r = (f r,g r)</hask>
  
| <hask>u1 r = (f r,g r)</hask>
  +
| <hask>u1 r = P (f r) (g r)</hask>
 
|-
  
|-
 
! scope="row" | Example failure condition
  
! scope="row" | Example failure condition
Line 54: Line 96:
 
| <hask>r ~ ()</hask>
  
| <hask>r ~ ()</hask>
 
<br /><hask>f _ = undefined</hask>
  
<br /><hask>f _ = undefined</hask>
  +
<br /><hask>g _ = undefined</hask>
  +
| <hask>r ~ ()</hask>
  +
<br /><hask>f _ = ()</hask>
 
<br /><hask>g _ = undefined</hask>
  
<br /><hask>g _ = undefined</hask>
 
|-
  
|-
Line 61: Line 106:
 
| <hask>u2 _ = ()</hask>
  
| <hask>u2 _ = ()</hask>
 
| <hask>u2 _ = undefined</hask>
  
| <hask>u2 _ = undefined</hask>
  +
|
 
|-
  
|-
 
! scope="row" | Difference
  
! scope="row" | Difference
−
| <hask>u1 undefined = undefined</hask>
 +
| <hask>u1 undefined = undefined</hask>
−
<br /><hask>u2 undefined = ()</hask>
 +
<br /><hask>u2 undefined = ()</hask>
−
| <hask>u1 _ = ()</hask>
 +
| <hask>u1 _ = ()</hask>
−
<br /><hask>u2 _ = undefined</hask>
 +
<br /><hask>u2 _ = undefined</hask>
−
| <hask>u1 undefined = undefined</hask>
 +
| <hask>u1 undefined = undefined</hask>
−
<br /><hask>u2 undefined = ()</hask>
 +
<br /><hask>u2 undefined = ()</hask>
−
| <hask>u1 _ = (undefined,undefined)</hask>
 +
| <hask>u1 _ = (undefined,undefined)</hask>
−
<br /><hask>u2 _ = undefined</hask>
 +
<br /><hask>u2 _ = undefined</hask>
  +
| <hask>f _ = ()</hask>
  +
<br /><hask>(fstP . u1) _ = undefined</hask>
 
|- style="background: red;"
  
|- style="background: red;"
 
! scope="row" | Result
  
! scope="row" | Result
  +
! scope="col" | FAIL
 
! scope="col" | FAIL
  
! scope="col" | FAIL
 
! scope="col" | FAIL
  
! scope="col" | FAIL
Line 79: Line 128:
 
|}
  
|}
   
−
== Platonic '''Hask''' ==
 +
== "Platonic" '''Hask''' ==
   
−
Because of these difficulties, Haskell developers tend to think in some subset of Haskell where types do not have bottoms. This means that it only includes functions that terminate, and typically only finite values. The corresponding category has the expected initial and terminal objects, sums and products. Instances of Functor and Monad really are endofunctors and monads.
 +
Because of these difficulties, Haskell developers tend to think in some subset of Haskell where types do not have bottom values. This means that it only includes functions that terminate, and typically only finite values. The corresponding category has the expected initial and terminal objects, sums and products, and instances of Functor and Monad really are endofunctors and monads.
   
 
== Links ==
  
== Links ==

Revision as of 20:35, 13 September 2012

Hask is the category of Haskell types and functions.

The objects of Hask are Haskell types, and the morphisms from objects A to B are Haskell functions of type A -> B. The identity morphism for object A is id :: A -> A, and the composition of morphisms f and g is f . g = \x -> f (g x).

Is Hask even a category?

Consider: 

undef1 = undefined :: a -> b
undef2 = \_ -> undefined

Note that these are not the same value: 

seq undef1 () = undefined
seq undef2 () = ()

This might be a problem, because undef1 . id = undef2. In order to make Hask a category, we define two functions f and g as the same morphism if f x = g x for all x. Thus undef1 and undef2 are different values, but the same morphism in Hask.

Hask is not Cartesian closed

Actual Hask does not have sums, products, or an initial object, and () is not a terminal object. The Monad identities fail for almost all instances of the Monad class.

Why Hask isn't as nice as you'd thought.
Initial Object Terminal Object Sum Product Product
Type data Empty data () = () data Either a b = Left a | Right b data (a,b) = (,) { fst :: a, snd :: b} data P a b = P {fstP :: !a, sndP :: !b}
Requirement There is a unique function


u :: Empty -> r

There is a unique function


u :: r -> ()

For any functions


f :: a -> r
g :: b -> r

there is a unique function u :: Either a b -> r

such that: u . Left = f
u . Right = g

For any functions


f :: r -> a
g :: r -> b

there is a unique function u :: r -> (a,b)

such that: fst . u = f
snd . u = g

For any functions


f :: r -> a
g :: r -> b

there is a unique function u :: r -> P a b

such that: fstP . u = f
sndP . u = g

Candidate u1 r = case r of {} u1 _ = () u1 (Left a) = f a


u1 (Right b) = g b

u1 r = (f r,g r) u1 r = P (f r) (g r)
Example failure condition r ~ () r ~ () r ~ ()


f _ = ()
g _ = ()

r ~ ()


f _ = undefined
g _ = undefined

r ~ ()


f _ = ()
g _ = undefined

Alternative u u2 _ = () u2 _ = undefined u2 _ = () u2 _ = undefined
Difference u1 undefined = undefined


u2 undefined = ()

u1 _ = ()


u2 _ = undefined

u1 undefined = undefined


u2 undefined = ()

u1 _ = (undefined,undefined)


u2 _ = undefined

f _ = ()


(fstP . u1) _ = undefined

Result FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL

"Platonic" Hask

Because of these difficulties, Haskell developers tend to think in some subset of Haskell where types do not have bottom values. This means that it only includes functions that terminate, and typically only finite values. The corresponding category has the expected initial and terminal objects, sums and products, and instances of Functor and Monad really are endofunctors and monads.

Links
Retrieved from "https://wiki.haskell.org/index.php?title=Hask&oldid=52908"