将谓词类型实现为逆变monad？

Question

I'm pretty sure I can show that, in principle, the Predicate type constructor is a ContraMonad , a generalization of Monad where the functor is contravariant, but I'm not sure how it would be implemented.

First, let's define some terms:

class Contravariant f where
    contramap :: (b -> a) -> f a -> f b

class ContraMonad m where
    return :: a -> m a
    join :: m(m a) -> m a
    contrabind :: m a -> (m b -> a) -> m b

data Predicate a = Pred {getPred :: a -> Bool}

instance Contravariant Predicate where
    contramap f x = Pred ((getPred x).f)

This shows that a predicate, which is a function that takes values of a and generates propositions from them, is a contravariant functor from Hask to Hask^{op}. An example of a predicate would be:

isEven :: Integer -> Bool
isEven n = if (mod n 2 == 0)
           then True
           else False

The function isEven is a predicate in the mathematical sense, while Pred isEven is a Predicate in the sense implemented here.

Implementing Predicate as a ContraMonad is trickier.

There is only one natural choice for return .

return :: a -> Predicate a
return x = Pred(const True)

You may consider the possibility of 'return' giving a Predicate for which x is true and no other elements of type a are true. The problem is that this can only be implemented if a is a member of the Eq typeclass.

It is easier to think about join than contrabind . Clearly, we want

contrabind x f = join.contramap f x

so that contrabind resembles bind as much as possible while taking account of f as a contravariant functor. The function f takes Pred b to a , so contramap f takes Pred a to Pred(Pred b) .

So, what should join do? It must take a Predicate of a Predicate of type a to a Predicate of type a. A Predicate of a Predicate of type a makes a judgement about predicates of type a. As an example, consider a = Integer. An example of Pred( Pred Integer) is:

Pred("The predicate f is true for all even numbers.")

Where I have used a quote in place of an actual implementation. If it is the case that f is true for all evens, then this statement is true. For example, Pred isEven would evaluate to True .

Considering the fact that predicates on a set A are correspond to subsets of A, a Pred(Pred A) is a wrapper for a function that takes all subsets of A and judges them as "True" or "False." We want join to give us a predicate, which is the same as giving a subset of A. This subset should be as lossless as possible. In fact, it should care about the truth value of every single Pred X , wrt the Pred(Pred X) judgment. The natural solution seems, to me, to be the intersection of all subsets judged as "True," which is the same thing as "ANDing" together all true predicates where

predAnd :: (a -> Bool) -> (a -> Bool) -> (a -> Bool)
predAnd p q = \x -> ((getPred p) $ x) && ((getPred q) $ x)

As an example, let's go back to "The predicate f is true for all even numbers." Every predicate evaluated as True under this judgment must be true for all evens, so every possible subset contains the evens. The intersection of all these sets will simply be the set of evens, so join would return the predicate Pred isEven .

My question is this, how would 'join' actually be implemented? Can it be implemented? I can see potential problems with undecidable sets arising for infinite types like 'Integer', but could it even be implemented for finite types like 'Char', where even the power set has finite cardinality?

Answer 1

There is something related, the contravariant version of Applicative is Divisible , which I've simplified here

class Contravariant f => Divisible f where
  divide  :: f b -> f c -> f (b, c)
  conquer :: f a

The divide in Data.Functor.Contravariant.Divisible is written in terms of a -> (b, c) which highlights the idea of dividing the work for a into the work for b and c .

{-# LANGUAGE RankNTypes #-}

-- The divide from Data.Functor.Contravariant.Divisible
divide' :: Divisible f => (a -> (b, c)) -> f b -> f c -> f a
divide' f b c = contramap f $ divide b c

-- And a proof they types are equivalent
proof :: (forall a b c. (a -> (b, c)) -> f b -> f c -> f a) -> f b -> f c -> f (b, c)
proof divide' = divide' id

Any Op is Divisible if its result is a Monoid . This is a generalization of Predicate , which is Op All

import Data.Monoid

newtype Op r a = Op {runOp :: a -> r}

instance Contravariant (Op r) where
  contramap f (Op g) = Op (g . f)

instance Monoid r => Divisible (Op r) where
  divide (Op f) (Op g) = Op (\(b, c) -> f b <> g c)
  conquer = Op (const mempty)

---

As a bonus, Op r is a Monoid as long as the result r is a moniod, which provides a straightforward way to define predAnd

instance Monoid a => Monoid (Op a b) where
  mempty = Op (const mempty)
  mappend (Op p) (Op q) = Op $ \a -> mappend (p a) (q a)

type Predicate a = Op All a

predAnd :: Predicate a -> Predicate a -> Predicate a
predAnd = mappend 

But that's hardly surprising .

Answer 2

I think I may have thought of a partial answer to my own question. First, we must force a to be in the Eq typeclass.

join p = Pred(\x -> not ((getPred p) (\y -> y /= x)))

This is a predicate which takes an element of type a and constructs a predicate out of it, namely the predicate where x is false and everything else is true. Then, it evaluates this predicate according to the original Pred( Pred a) judgment.

If this predicate is true, than it is the case that x is not in the intersection of all predicates, and thus the final predicate sends x to False. On the other hand, if this predicate is false, it is not necessarily the case that x is in the intersection, unless we make an additional rule:

If the Pred( Pred a) judgment rules a nearly maximal predicate false, the element ruled false in the nearly maximal predicate must appear in all predicates judged to be true.

Thus, the judgment "The predicate f is true for all even numbers." is allowed under this rule, but the judgment "The predicate f is true only for even numbers." is not allowed. If a judgment of the first kind is used, join will give the intersection of all true predicates. In the second case, join will simply give a predicate which can sometimes tell you if x is unnecessary. If it returns False , x is definitely unnecessary. If it returns True , the test is inconclusive.

I'm now convinced that a full implementation of "ANDing" is impossible unless the type a is finite and even then is impractical unless a is very small.