Yoneda is CPS
Jul. 1st, 2016 07:39 pmhttps://bartoszmilewski.com/2015/09/01/the-yoneda-lemma/
forall r . (a -> r) -> r ≅ a
Is it forall a or not? Yoneda says yes. Does this mean type system is boolean?
Is it forall a or not? Yoneda says yes. Does this mean type system is boolean?
no subject
Date: 2016-07-01 08:59 pm (UTC)It's about natural transformations from (a->_) to id, in Sets, and they are in one-to-one correspondence with the set a.
Hask is not Sets. Again, Hask is not Sets. I don't know where Bartosz takes all this, to me he seems over-creative.
So - never mind. He's just fantasizing.
no subject
Date: 2016-07-01 09:09 pm (UTC)The question actually comes from the allegation that CPS is isomorphic to "direct" expression. I cannot recall where I saw this allegation, so was looking for a confirmation.
Then if they are not isomorphic, it means one of the ways is "more expressive"?
no subject
Date: 2016-07-01 09:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-07-01 09:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-07-01 09:27 pm (UTC)I think continuation is like a closure, double adjunction. Generalized points.
no subject
Date: 2016-07-04 08:45 am (UTC)Here we are not talking about an isomorphism ((A→⊥)→⊥)→A (from which booleanness would follow). Here we are talking about a _family_ of functions. That is, the type is also an input:
CPS transform is an isomorphism: ((X : Type)→(A→X)→X)→A
(Note it isn't a value of type X as the first argument, but the type X)
no subject
Date: 2016-07-02 06:49 am (UTC)Wadler says yes. His free theorems guarantee...
no subject
Date: 2016-07-02 06:54 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-07-02 07:01 am (UTC)no. it means that expression of cps with a quantifier is a good approximation for Yoneda.
no subject
Date: 2016-07-04 07:33 am (UTC)А как Йонеда в Set выглядит? Вот у нас есть Hom(A,-), тогда Hom(A,⊥) - пустое множество для непустых A. Не наврал? И вот множество стрелок из пустого множества (естественные преобразования) изоморфно множеству, отображающему A?..
no subject
Date: 2016-07-04 07:34 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-07-02 07:03 am (UTC)also we cannot prove the isomorphism in the underlying type system.