3 ms·
The funny part is that it's completely true, albeit not very useful if one doesn't know how monoid constructions work categorically (good explanation at [0]).
by siraben 5y ago
The funny part is that it's completely true, albeit not very useful if one doesn't know how monoid constructions work categorically (good explanation at [0]).
Algebra: Chapter 0 has a similar overly technical definition for groups (which they elaborate of course). Also see[1]
Joke 1.1. Definition: A group is a groupoid with a single object.
[0] https://old.reddit.com/r/math/comments/ap25mr/a_monad_is_a_monoid_in_the_category_of/ https://old.reddit.com/r/math/comments/ap25mr/a_monad_is_a_m...
[1] https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e3/b6/23/e3b62382a9eb1021ff3086184c7ca05a.png https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e3/b6/23/e3b62382a9eb1021ff30...
- AzzieElbab 5y agoIt means monad is a thing that sequentially combines computations on the same type. Of course there is more to it but i believe this definition is useful as a starting point
- gnufx 5y agoI don't think anyone doubts the technical fact, or it wouldn't be a decent joke. The problem is if people think Wadler (might have) said it as such, and that it reflects a community attitude. It's trotted out often enough in a disparaging way. As far as I remember, Milewski left it to the end as something he just felt obliged to show.