3 Apr 06:46 2007

### Re: Mathematics in Haskell

R Hayes <rfhayes <at> reillyhayes.com>

2007-04-03 04:46:34 GMT

2007-04-03 04:46:34 GMT

Wouldn't this be a good discussion for the Haskell Prime List?

Reilly Hayes

+1 415 388 3903 (office)

+1 415 846 1827 (mobile)

On Apr 2, 2007, at 3:24 PM, Andrzej Jaworski wrote:

I too was put off by the Num issues though--strange mixture of sophisticatedcategory theory and lack of a sensible hierarchy of algebraic objects.Perhaps we should replace CT with lattice theoretic thinking (e.g. functor = monotonicfunction) before cleaning up the type-related mess?so count me in on an effort to make Haskell more mathematical. For me thatprobably starts with the semigroup/group/ring setup, and goodarbitrary-precision as well as approximate linear algebra support.I agree: semigoups like lattices are everywhere.Then there could be a uniform treatment of linear algebra, polynomial equations, operatoralgebra, etc. So, perhaps haste is not a good advice here?-Andrzej_______________________________________________Haskell-Cafe mailing list

_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe <at> haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe