BM Category Theory II 8: F-Algebra, Lambek’s Lemma , Catamorphism, Coalgebra, Anamorphism

[Continued from previous BM Category Theory …]

\boxed { \text {type Algebra f a = f a} \to \text {a} }

Intuition: [Artificial Intelligence] You teach the computer like to a Primary 6 kid, that Algebra is a type of expression (f) which, after evaluation,  returns a value.

If a = i (initial) [or u (terminal)],
\boxed { \text {(f i} \to \text {i )} \implies \text {f = Fix-point} }

Intuition: Fix-point because, the Initial “i”, after evaluating the expression f, returns itself “i”.

Lambek’s Lemma 
\boxed { \text {Initial Algebra is an Isomorphism} }

Note: Endo-functor is a functor (equivalent to function in Set Theory) within the same Category (Endo = Self = 自)

Video 8.1 F-Algebras & Lambek’s Lemma 

Video 8.2 Catamorphism & Anamorphism 

foldr ~ catamorphism (浅层变质) of a Fix-point endo-functor on a List.

Examples: Fibonacci, Sum_List

Remark: Cool Math! the more  advanced concept it is, the more closer to Nature (eg.Geology, Biology) : Catamorphism 浅层(风化)变质, or “thin-layer change in nature” (in Functional Programming languages: foldr or map) eg : add1 to a list (1 5 3 8…) 
= (2 6 4 9 …)

\boxed { \text {type Coalgebra f a = a} \to \text {f a} }

Intuition: Reverse of Algebra, given a value, Coalgebra returns an expression (f).

Anamorphism (合成变质) ~ unfoldr

Example: Prime numbers

Remark: Anamorphism (合成变质) or “synthesised change in nature“: eg. Start from a  “seed” prime number “2” generates  all other infinite prime numbers (3 5 7 9 11 13 17 …)

Note: In Haskell, no difference between Initial and Terminal Fix-points. However, since Fix-point is not unique, in Category Theory there is the Least Fix-point (Initial) and Greatest Fix-point (Terminal).

Ref: 

Reading “Understanding F-Algebra ” by BM: https://bartoszmilewski.com/2013/06/10/understanding-f-algebras/

Catamorphism (下态) : https://www.zhihu.com/question/52180621/answer/129582557

Anamorphism : https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/cofree/21354189

F-Algebra & F-coalgebra: http://stackoverflow.com/a/16022059/5822795

Higher Order Function

[Source] https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-mathematical-explanations-for-higher-order-functions-Functional-programming/answer/Bartosz-Milewski?share=d265e0ac&srid=ZyHj

As Tikhon Jelvis explained in his response, functions map sets to sets, and functions themselves form sets. This is the essence of the untyped lambda calculus. Unfortunately, untyped lambda calculus suffers from the Kleene–Rosser paradox (later simplified to Curry’s paradox).

This paradox can be removed by introducing types, as in the typed lambda calculus. Simple types are equivalent to sets, but  in order to pass a function as an argument to another function (or return one), we have to give this function a type. To really understand what a function type is, you need to look into category theory.

The categorical model for the typed lambda calculus is a category in which objects are types and morphism are functions. So if you want to have higher order functions, you have to be able to represent morphisms as objects — in other words, create a type for functions. This is possible only if the category is cartesian closed. In such a category you can define product types and exponential types. The latter correspond to function types.

So that’s a mathematical explanation for higher order.