There was a conversation on the cafe about this last month. Check out:Category theory is a "language" of composition. In "logical" terms, different categories are models of different axioms. That said, a "rich enough" category is suitable for encoding the "whole" of category theory (as a language -- not necessarily as a model containing sub-models. Typing introduces some complications, since types meant to help us escape logical paradoxes like Russell's by introducing a notion of "foundedness")Hask is the category whose objects are types and whose morphisms are Haskell functions.Hask is a very rich category, and is suitable for encoding a lot (but not all) of category theory. As far as I know, the actual boundary is as yet unknown.On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 4:15 AM, Alfredo Di Napoli <alfredo.dinapoli@gmail.com> wrote:
_______________________________________________Morning Cafe,I'm planning to do a series of write-ups about Category Theory, to publish them on the company's blog I'm currently employed.I'm not a CT expert, but since the best way to learn something is to explain it to others, I want to take a shot :)In my mind I will structure the posts following Awodey's book, but I'm wondering how can I make my posts a little more "real world".I always read about the "Hask category", which seems to be the "bootstrap" of the whole logic behind Haskell. Can you please give mymaterials/papers/links/blogs to the Hask category and briefly explain me how it relates to Category Theory and Haskell itself?I hope my question is clear enough, in case is not, I'll restate :PCheers,A.
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe