News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Haskell People. Parent comment

Re:Haskell People by catnaroek on Saturday September 30, 2017 @02:10PM (#15374153)
mightybyte didn't state the associativity law in his original definition. As for the left and right identity laws, he did state them, and I did intend my instance to satisfy them (otherwise I wouldn't have special-cased 25, of course), but I messed up. I've fixed my post since.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Haskell People by conistonwater on Saturday September 30, 2017 @02:14PM (#15374182)
Just for reference, the laws are stated in full in haskell's docs, https://hackage.haskell.org/package/base-4.10.0.0/docs/Data-....
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Haskell People by catnaroek on Saturday September 30, 2017 @02:16PM (#15374192)
I was deliberately “acting stupid” to criticize an insufficiently precise definition.

---

> That is usually a terrible idea.

Not at all. Think about the structure of a proof of negation. You make a “silly” assumption and “play along” until you reach a contradiction.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Haskell People by conistonwater on Saturday September 30, 2017 @02:46PM (#15374381)
That is usually a terrible idea.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Haskell People by conistonwater on Saturday September 30, 2017 @04:38PM (#15374879)
Proofs by contradiction do not require you to play dumb, you can just present them as they are.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Haskell People by mightybyte on Saturday September 30, 2017 @03:09PM (#15374523)
I left out associativity because I was focusing on the ELI5 part.
[ Parent | on HN ]