Comments on: More on Comonads as Monad Transformers http://comonad.com/reader/2011/more-on-comonads-as-monad-transformers/ types, (co)monads, substructural logic Sat, 29 Dec 2012 15:18:06 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: The Comonad.Reader » A Product of an Imperfect Union http://comonad.com/reader/2011/more-on-comonads-as-monad-transformers/comment-page-1/#comment-62287 The Comonad.Reader » A Product of an Imperfect Union Fri, 01 Jul 2011 03:58:38 +0000 http://comonad.com/reader/?p=328#comment-62287 [...] Last time, when we inspected CoT w m a we demonstrated that on one hand given a suitable adjunction f -| g, such that w = f . g, Co w ~ Co (f . g) ~ (g . f), but on the other CoT w m a was bigger than g . m . f, and that if n -| m, then CoT w m a ~ g . m . n . f. [...] [...] Last time, when we inspected CoT w m a we demonstrated that on one hand given a suitable adjunction f -| g, such that w = f . g, Co w ~ Co (f . g) ~ (g . f), but on the other CoT w m a was bigger than g . m . f, and that if n -| m, then CoT w m a ~ g . m . n . f. [...]

]]> By: Edward Kmett http://comonad.com/reader/2011/more-on-comonads-as-monad-transformers/comment-page-1/#comment-62263 Edward Kmett Fri, 01 Jul 2011 00:05:32 +0000 http://comonad.com/reader/?p=328#comment-62263 Yes and yes. :) Yes and yes. :)

]]> By: wren ng thornton http://comonad.com/reader/2011/more-on-comonads-as-monad-transformers/comment-page-1/#comment-62253 wren ng thornton Thu, 30 Jun 2011 21:31:25 +0000 http://comonad.com/reader/?p=328#comment-62253 <i>Co w a ~ Co (f . g) ~ g . f</i> Shouldn't that be Co w? <i>CoT w m a ~ Codensity (g . m) r</i> Shouldn't that be Codensity (g . m) a? Co w a ~ Co (f . g) ~ g . f

Shouldn’t that be Co w?

CoT w m a ~ Codensity (g . m) r

Shouldn’t that be Codensity (g . m) a?

]]>