4 ms·
mightybyte didn't state the associativity law in his original definition. As for the left and right identity laws, he did state them, and I did intend my instan
by catnaroek 9y ago
mightybyte didn't state the associativity law in his original definition. As for the left and right identity laws, he did state them, and I did intend my instance to satisfy them (otherwise I wouldn't have special-cased 25, of course), but I messed up. I've fixed my post since.
- conistonwater 9y agoJust for reference, the laws are stated in full in haskell's docs, https://hackage.haskell.org/package/base-4.10.0.0/docs/Data-Monoid.html https://hackage.haskell.org/package/base-4.10.0.0/docs/Data-....
- catnaroek 9y agoI was deliberately “acting stupid” to criticize an insufficiently precise definition. --- > That is usually a terrible idea. Not at all. Think about the structure of a proof of negation. You make a “silly” assumption and “play along” until you reach a contradiction.
- conistonwater 9y agoThat is usually a terrible idea.
- conistonwater 9y agoProofs by contradiction do not require you to play dumb, you can just present them as they are.
- mightybyte 9y agoI left out associativity because I was focusing on the ELI5 part.