News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Overthinking Fizzbuzz with Monoids by ibotty on Thursday September 14, 2017 @03:54AM (#15245796)
Monoid is a concept that is older than category theory. And way simpler. I don't get why people always say category theory when they mean basic algebra. Maybe they don't know better (lack of math background, expository texts that go straight to "category theory")?

Anyone an idea on why that's happening?

Re:Overthinking Fizzbuzz with Monoids by icen on Thursday September 14, 2017 @04:50AM (#15246062)
Introduction to category theory via haskell, and not learning the right areas of abstract algebra?

It's plausible to even do a degree in mathematics and never encounter the name 'monoid' - you'll obviously encounter the structure, but my abstract algebra classes just skipped ahead to groups, and then to rings and modules, instead of spending any time on the simpler structures.

Other times, like when studying formal languages, because regular languages are a monoid, the structure is introduced, via noting that you have an empty language and a method to combine any two languages, but not given the name monoid.

So you come across haskell, and it gives a name to things like monoids, monads, functors, and so on, and says that monads and functors come from category theory, and it seems like a valid inference to say that monoids also come from category theory.

Re:Overthinking Fizzbuzz with Monoids by tome on Thursday September 14, 2017 @05:52AM (#15246358)
Haskellers tend to think category theory is far more useful than it is, and non-Haskellers the complete opposite. On a forum of predominantly non-Haskellers I'm happy for them to get a bit of a overdose of the terminology.
Re:Overthinking Fizzbuzz with Monoids by anon335dtzbvc on Thursday September 14, 2017 @04:22AM (#15245928)
I guess adding the discovery year of monoids to a blog post is not associative.