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”?

Good examples of "two is easy, three is hard" in computational sciences

Story about encounter with hostile aliens

Was Tyrion always a poor strategist?

Separate the element after every 2nd ',' and push into next row in bash

Do 'destroy' effects count as damage?

On a piano, are the effects of holding notes and the sustain pedal the same for a single chord?

What is this dime sized black bug with white on the segments near Loveland Colorodao?

How did Arya and the Hound get into King's Landing so easily?

Is there any mention of ghosts who live outside the Hogwarts castle?

How to become an Editorial board member?

Simple Arithmetic Puzzle 7. Or is it?

Keeping the dodos out of the field

Can dirty bird feeders make birds sick?

How should I mix small caps with digits or symbols?

Schwa-less Polysyllabic German Noun Stems of Germanic Origin

Is presenting a play showing Military characters in a bad light a crime in the US?

How did Jean Parisot de Valette, 49th Grand Master of the Order of Malta, die?

Connecting circles clockwise in TikZ

Why "strap-on" boosters, and how do other people say it?

List of lists elementwise greater/smaller than

Expand a hexagon

How to tease a romance without a cat and mouse chase?

How to draw with Tikz a chord parallel to AC that passes through a point?

What are the domains of the multiplication and unit morphisms of a monoid object?



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;








8















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.










share|improve this question



















  • 3





    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
    8 hours ago












  • 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
    8 hours ago











  • @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
    7 hours ago






  • 6





    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
    7 hours ago






  • 2





    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
    6 hours ago


















8















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.










share|improve this question



















  • 3





    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
    8 hours ago












  • 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
    8 hours ago











  • @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
    7 hours ago






  • 6





    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
    7 hours ago






  • 2





    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
    6 hours ago














8












8








8


3






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.










share|improve this question
















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






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 3 hours ago









4castle

22.4k54475




22.4k54475










asked 8 hours ago









Bogdan VakulenkoBogdan Vakulenko

1,760218




1,760218







  • 3





    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
    8 hours ago












  • 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
    8 hours ago











  • @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
    7 hours ago






  • 6





    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
    7 hours ago






  • 2





    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
    6 hours ago













  • 3





    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
    8 hours ago












  • 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
    8 hours ago











  • @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
    7 hours ago






  • 6





    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
    7 hours ago






  • 2





    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
    6 hours ago








3




3





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
8 hours ago






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
8 hours ago














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
8 hours ago





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
8 hours ago













@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
7 hours ago





@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
7 hours ago




6




6





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
7 hours ago





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
7 hours ago




2




2





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
6 hours ago






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
6 hours ago













1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















15















Is M ⊗ M some how related to cartesian product, so domain of the morphism is defined as M 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 Functors (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 Functors (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).






share|improve this answer

























    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
    );



    );













    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    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









    15















    Is M ⊗ M some how related to cartesian product, so domain of the morphism is defined as M 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 Functors (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 Functors (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).






    share|improve this answer





























      15















      Is M ⊗ M some how related to cartesian product, so domain of the morphism is defined as M 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 Functors (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 Functors (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).






      share|improve this answer



























        15












        15








        15








        Is M ⊗ M some how related to cartesian product, so domain of the morphism is defined as M 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 Functors (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 Functors (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).






        share|improve this answer
















        Is M ⊗ M some how related to cartesian product, so domain of the morphism is defined as M 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 Functors (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 Functors (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).







        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited 6 hours ago

























        answered 7 hours ago









        duplodeduplode

        25k45296




        25k45296





























            draft saved

            draft discarded
















































            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.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            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





















































            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







            Popular posts from this blog

            Log på Navigationsmenu

            Wonderful Copenhagen (sang) Eksterne henvisninger | NavigationsmenurSide på frankloesser.comWonderful Copenhagen

            Detroit Tigers Spis treści Historia | Skład zespołu | Sukcesy | Członkowie Baseball Hall of Fame | Zastrzeżone numery | Przypisy | Menu nawigacyjneEncyclopedia of Detroit - Detroit TigersTigers Stadium, Detroit, MITigers Timeline 1900sDetroit Tigers Team History & EncyclopediaTigers Timeline 1910s1935 World Series1945 World Series1945 World Series1984 World SeriesComerica Park, Detroit, MI2006 World Series2012 World SeriesDetroit Tigers 40-Man RosterDetroit Tigers Coaching StaffTigers Hall of FamersTigers Retired Numberse