Timeline for When were triples called monads for the first time?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
18 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S May 23, 2020 at 17:27 | history | suggested | Glorfindel | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
broken link fixed
|
| May 23, 2020 at 17:01 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S May 23, 2020 at 17:27 | |||||
| Aug 19, 2019 at 11:28 | vote | accept | fosco | ||
| Aug 19, 2019 at 11:05 | history | edited | Martin Sleziak |
added the (monads) tag
|
|
| Aug 19, 2019 at 11:04 | history | edited | Ben McKay | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
grammar
|
| Aug 19, 2019 at 10:42 | answer | added | Arnaud D. | timeline score: 8 | |
| Aug 15, 2019 at 9:37 | comment | added | fosco | Yes, that's what I was looking for. Turn it into an answer and I will accept it :-) | |
| Aug 12, 2019 at 6:52 | comment | added | Arnaud D. | You might be interested by this English.SE question | |
| Aug 11, 2019 at 12:41 | comment | added | Giorgio Mossa | (continue) basically for those author a triple should be something like a monad for haskellers while a monad is just a monoid in a category of endofunctors. | |
| Aug 11, 2019 at 12:38 | comment | added | Giorgio Mossa | I think that some authors use the term triple for a different presentation of monad. For these authors a triple is not a functor but an object functions with some additional morphisms parameterized by objects. Between these authors there are Moggi and Linton if I am not mistaken. | |
| Aug 11, 2019 at 4:14 | history | became hot network question | |||
| Aug 11, 2019 at 2:00 | comment | added | David Roberts♦ | My guess about the broken link is that it is to the email of Ross Street to the categories mailing list (dated 03 Nov 2007) starting with the sentence "History can be harder than mathematics.", available from mta.ca/~cat-dist/archive/2007/07-11 There was a lot of discussion about history in that email thread, and not 100% agreement on events from the 1960s (CT had a poor publication record at the time, due to the lack of dedicated journals, so results percolated via conference proceedings/abstracts, discussions etc. I think few people saw it then as a field of research) | |
| Aug 10, 2019 at 20:41 | answer | added | Adam P. Goucher | timeline score: 7 | |
| Aug 10, 2019 at 20:35 | comment | added | Carlo Beenakker | see also stackoverflow.com/q/3870088 (with an answer that has 754 upvotes...) | |
| Aug 10, 2019 at 20:35 | review | Close votes | |||
| Aug 15, 2019 at 3:05 | |||||
| Aug 10, 2019 at 20:31 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | Surely a kind of back-formation from monoid? Coupled perhaps with the love of purloining terms from philosophy. I don't know that it needed more than one event, namely the recognition that a monad is a monoid in a category of endofunctors, like his book says. | |
| Aug 10, 2019 at 20:28 | history | edited | fosco | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 12 characters in body
|
| Aug 10, 2019 at 20:08 | history | asked | fosco | CC BY-SA 4.0 |