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

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

>>55946768
what does this diagram mean?

>>55946924
Associativity of monads i.e. if you're nesting monads, it doesn't matter which order you calculate them in

>>55946768
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

>>55946768
can you give examples of other monoids?

>>55947375
Category Theory

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

File: Screen Shot 2016-08-06 at 16.16.45.png (299KB, 1038x747px) Image search: [Google]

299KB, 1038x747px

>>55947392
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

>>55946768
please stop

>>55947745
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.

>>55946768
So easy I won't waste our time here. Spam.

File: 1418486965424.jpg (54KB, 479x498px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 479x498px

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

>>55947313
No, most here don't take this website seriously to waste time giving thoughtful answers. And why should they?

>>55947816
>not \infty-comonads

>>55946924
>>55946982
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.

>>55947745
>monoid
Have you done like no math courses past HS? This is abstract algebra 101.

>>55948272
shut up nerd

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

>>55948439
s-stop b-b-b-being e-e-ed-educated

>>55948465
shut up nerd

>>55946768
Can someone explain me what a Monad or an IO is?

>>55948498
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Haskell/Category_theory

>>55948513
So this is what autism looks like.

>>55948513
Thanks, that is interesting. I always liked the way functions in Haskell are defined, just like in mathematics.

/g/ doesn't even understand how to average 2 ints in C

>>55946768
A monad is just a lax 2-functor from the terminal bicategory

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

>>55949297
Tell me Rajesh, what is the difficult here? How do I make it so I understand?

>>55949450
You do the into readings of the theory of categories