A monad is a monoid in the category of endofunctors, what's the problem?

A monad is a monoid in the category of endofunctors, what's the problem?

Only a retard wouldn't understand this.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Haskell/Category_theory
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Simple mang. Get back to me when you can divide by 0

what does this diagram mean?

Associativity of monads i.e. if you're nesting monads, it doesn't matter which order you calculate them in

You're on a board where half of the people are too retarded to understand pointers

Is that set theory? Or maybe graph theory? I'm doing more applied math so I probably got this wrong

can you give examples of other monoids?

Category Theory

Don't bother with it unless you want to go really in depth into functional programming.

pic related

Although that line in the OP is mostly for the lulz. Everybody learns monoids first in a set theoretical context (where you have a -set- of things that can be connected with an operation, like the ones in the pic or also lists, for example), while the way to encode a monoid in a cateogry is somewhat abstract.

And e.g. saying a natural transformation is just an arrow in a category of functors is technically true, but such a high level way of expressing the notion, you don't learn what a natural transformation is form hearing that phrase.

i don't know what a monad is
i don't know what a monoid is
i don't know what an endofunctor is

please stop

That claim raises some epistemological concerns.

Let's consider
>A hatted man is man who wears a hat
You say
>I don't know what a hatted man is
>I don't know what a man is
>I don't know what a hat is

I'm not sure if the first proposition is false, but it any case it appear redundant.

So easy I won't waste our time here. Spam.

>monads
>not symmetric semimonoidal co-Kleisli left-adjoint 2-comonads

No, most here don't take this website seriously to waste time giving thoughtful answers. And why should they?

>not \infty-comonads

Or more concretely, in Haskell join.join will always give the same result as fmap join

Example for the list monad: both expressions take a list of lists of lists and return a single flattened list of all elements of the top-level lists.

One expression concatenates at top level first and the other one at bottom level first, but the result is the same.

>monoid
Have you done like no math courses past HS? This is abstract algebra 101.

shut up nerd

Learning monads is easily the biggest epiphany I've had as a programmer

s-stop b-b-b-being e-e-ed-educated

shut up nerd

Can someone explain me what a Monad or an IO is?

en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Haskell/Category_theory

So this is what autism looks like.

Thanks, that is interesting. I always liked the way functions in Haskell are defined, just like in mathematics.

Sup Forums doesn't even understand how to average 2 ints in C

A monad is just a lax 2-functor from the terminal bicategory

What the fuck is supposed to be so difficult about this?

Tell me Rajesh, what is the difficult here? How do I make it so I understand?

You do the into readings of the theory of categories