On 2/21/12 10:44 AM, wren ng thornton wrote:
but domain products do not form domains! In order to get a product which does form a domain, we'd need to use the smash product[2] instead. Unfortunately we can't have our cake and eat it too
Bah, I don't know why my wires were crossed yesterday. It's *coproducts* where the category-theoretic and domain-theoretic definitions are at odds. For *products*, the issues are just about whether the category is cartesian closed and the like (i.e., divergence between products and tensors). Up too late with too little coffee, no doubt. My apologies for causing confusion.
-- Live well, ~wren _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
