Newest at the top
| 2025-01-30 20:35:52 +0100 | weary-traveler | (~user@user/user363627) (Remote host closed the connection) |
| 2025-01-30 20:35:40 +0100 | <lambdabot> | Just 4 |
| 2025-01-30 20:35:38 +0100 | <[exa]> | > Just (+) <*> Just 1 <*> Just 3 -- euouae try replacing one with Nothing |
| 2025-01-30 20:35:12 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | euouae: if you think of Int -> Int as a state transformer, then a monad is a state transformer _that also does something else_ |
| 2025-01-30 20:34:46 +0100 | <[exa]> | euouae: btw are you familiar with how applicatives work? these are essentially the same thing but waaaaaaaaaaaaay more accessible for intuition |
| 2025-01-30 20:33:07 +0100 | alexherbo2 | (~alexherbo@2a02-8440-3504-afc6-21c9-80c8-175a-acbd.rev.sfr.net) alexherbo2 |
| 2025-01-30 20:32:48 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2025-01-30 20:32:48 +0100 | alexherbo2 | (~alexherbo@2a02-8440-3504-afc6-21c9-80c8-175a-acbd.rev.sfr.net) (Remote host closed the connection) |
| 2025-01-30 20:29:49 +0100 | <euouae> | I think Goedel's numbering will help you |
| 2025-01-30 20:29:36 +0100 | <mauke> | how do I wrote an uncomputable function |
| 2025-01-30 20:29:30 +0100 | <euouae> | I don't know if state machines can be noncomputable, because I think of them in terms of rule sets (algorithmic) |
| 2025-01-30 20:29:04 +0100 | <euouae> | btw with Int -> Int you'd have to restrict to recursively defined functions, i.e. computable |
| 2025-01-30 20:27:53 +0100 | CiaoSen | (~Jura@2a05:5800:241:f200:ca4b:d6ff:fec1:99da) CiaoSen |
| 2025-01-30 20:27:43 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | not consciously |
| 2025-01-30 20:27:15 +0100 | <mauke> | have you never opened a box and found N copies of yourself in N different parallel universes? |
| 2025-01-30 20:27:08 +0100 | <euouae> | maybe I should look more into the state monad at this point |
| 2025-01-30 20:26:28 +0100 | <mauke> | works for me! |
| 2025-01-30 20:26:15 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | mauke: I'd call that one not even an intuition any more. :P |
| 2025-01-30 20:26:00 +0100 | <mauke> | anything that doesn't fit into the box model just uses more magic |
| 2025-01-30 20:25:48 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | "burrito" works fine for a State monad, but it makes little sense for the Maybe monad already |
| 2025-01-30 20:25:40 +0100 | <mauke> | look, it's simple: magic boxes |
| 2025-01-30 20:25:26 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | the more concrete / simple you make your intuition of monads, the less actual monads it applies to |
| 2025-01-30 20:25:11 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | the only intuition that I know for monads that can still sensibly be called an "intuition", but nevertheless scales to the vast majority of monads (if not all of them), is "overloaded semicolon" |
| 2025-01-30 20:24:54 +0100 | <euouae> | In the definition of >>= in the instance of Monad |
| 2025-01-30 20:24:46 +0100 | <mauke> | where do you see a rule set? |
| 2025-01-30 20:24:33 +0100 | <euouae> | I don't mean functionally composable, I mean that their state machine rule sets compose |
| 2025-01-30 20:24:12 +0100 | <mauke> | composes fine |
| 2025-01-30 20:24:10 +0100 | <lambdabot> | 8 |
| 2025-01-30 20:24:08 +0100 | <mauke> | > ((* 2) . (+ 1)) 3 |
| 2025-01-30 20:24:06 +0100 | <euouae> | Well, perhaps it is faulty intuition. |
| 2025-01-30 20:24:01 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | functions are the ultimate composable thing! |
| 2025-01-30 20:23:52 +0100 | <euouae> | Yeah but 'composable' state machines is where I like the idea -- that';s what makes monads different |
| 2025-01-30 20:23:45 +0100 | <mauke> | in particular, it's no longer specific to monads or >>= |
| 2025-01-30 20:23:34 +0100 | Tuplanolla | (~Tuplanoll@91-159-69-59.elisa-laajakaista.fi) Tuplanolla |
| 2025-01-30 20:23:33 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | and it's not a useful label to attach to programs any more |
| 2025-01-30 20:23:32 +0100 | <[exa]> | <3 |
| 2025-01-30 20:23:29 +0100 | MyNetAz | (~MyNetAz@user/MyNetAz) MyNetAz |
| 2025-01-30 20:23:26 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | at that point all programs are state machines :p |
| 2025-01-30 20:23:24 +0100 | Square2 | (~Square4@user/square) (Ping timeout: 246 seconds) |
| 2025-01-30 20:23:14 +0100 | <euouae> | tomsmeding: I see your point about it being stateless; but if the Int -> Int function is algorithmic, it is the computation of a state machine |
| 2025-01-30 20:22:53 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | you had a state of type Int, and you get back a new one |
| 2025-01-30 20:22:36 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | euouae: if you have a function `Int -> Int`, is that also a state machine? |
| 2025-01-30 20:22:19 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | you need the second Just |
| 2025-01-30 20:22:17 +0100 | <lambdabot> | Just 2 |
| 2025-01-30 20:22:15 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | > Just 1 >>= \x -> Just (x + 1) |
| 2025-01-30 20:22:13 +0100 | <[exa]> | you can look at Maybe as a state machine too, with 2 states (the one that carries data and the one that has failed already) |
| 2025-01-30 20:22:06 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 244 seconds) |
| 2025-01-30 20:22:05 +0100 | <euouae> | mauke, well e.g. `Just 1 >>= (\x -> x + 1)` will give you Just 2. You had the state Just 1; now you have the state Just 2 with input the x+1 calculation. |
| 2025-01-30 20:21:57 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | euouae: I see a state machine as a box that has some internal state, and that you can send events to and it responds to those events and updates its state |
| 2025-01-30 20:21:36 +0100 | <euouae> | I'm not familiar with `State` yet, so before we go there, maybe if you can tell me a bit more about why Maybe is not a state machine |