thank you!!!
and thanks for sharing :)
and thanks for sharing :)
March 21, 2025 at 4:54 PM
thank you!!!
and thanks for sharing :)
and thanks for sharing :)
aha! and this made you happy with closures b/c it ~gives an identification b/w closures and values?
March 18, 2025 at 2:50 PM
aha! and this made you happy with closures b/c it ~gives an identification b/w closures and values?
eilenberg-kelly says that if you have a currying adjunction then the product functor is monoidal iff the category is closed
ie, currying gives you internal homs
is that right?
ie, currying gives you internal homs
is that right?
March 18, 2025 at 6:45 AM
eilenberg-kelly says that if you have a currying adjunction then the product functor is monoidal iff the category is closed
ie, currying gives you internal homs
is that right?
ie, currying gives you internal homs
is that right?
this is ... an example of an isomorphism? dafuq?
February 25, 2025 at 9:01 AM
this is ... an example of an isomorphism? dafuq?
I was gonna say I'm still not convinced that there are no "bad" lenses
Then I remembered that `Lens' s a` is iso to `∃b. Iso s (a, b)`, which obviously has no "bad" values
I love existential lenses
Then I remembered that `Lens' s a` is iso to `∃b. Iso s (a, b)`, which obviously has no "bad" values
I love existential lenses
February 25, 2025 at 3:17 AM
I was gonna say I'm still not convinced that there are no "bad" lenses
Then I remembered that `Lens' s a` is iso to `∃b. Iso s (a, b)`, which obviously has no "bad" values
I love existential lenses
Then I remembered that `Lens' s a` is iso to `∃b. Iso s (a, b)`, which obviously has no "bad" values
I love existential lenses
gotta make sure it's beginner-friendly
February 25, 2025 at 2:34 AM
gotta make sure it's beginner-friendly
i think he's literally just saying that if foo is overloaded with implementations foo₁ and foo₂ then it's the tuple (foo₁, foo₂)
which is true, i guess
which is true, i guess
February 21, 2025 at 10:36 PM
i think he's literally just saying that if foo is overloaded with implementations foo₁ and foo₂ then it's the tuple (foo₁, foo₂)
which is true, i guess
which is true, i guess
my kneejerk reaction is that it seems impossible because I cannot think of a type X for which 3 × X ≅ 1
clearly I am missing the role of linearity ... hence the question! ^^
clearly I am missing the role of linearity ... hence the question! ^^
February 20, 2025 at 11:50 AM
my kneejerk reaction is that it seems impossible because I cannot think of a type X for which 3 × X ≅ 1
clearly I am missing the role of linearity ... hence the question! ^^
clearly I am missing the role of linearity ... hence the question! ^^
what is the mult. inverse given by?
February 20, 2025 at 11:48 AM
what is the mult. inverse given by?
what def of e as a type do you take, to get this?
February 20, 2025 at 6:21 AM
what def of e as a type do you take, to get this?
t × t × t → (n → t)
(a, b, c) ↦ (n ↦ case n of { 0 → a; 1 → b; 2 → c; })
(f 0, f 1, f 2) ←| f
(a, b, c) ↦ (n ↦ case n of { 0 → a; 1 → b; 2 → c; })
(f 0, f 1, f 2) ←| f
February 20, 2025 at 6:19 AM
t × t × t → (n → t)
(a, b, c) ↦ (n ↦ case n of { 0 → a; 1 → b; 2 → c; })
(f 0, f 1, f 2) ←| f
(a, b, c) ↦ (n ↦ case n of { 0 → a; 1 → b; 2 → c; })
(f 0, f 1, f 2) ←| f