Associativity of monads - haskell

Question

newtype Set a = Set [a]
New Type Set that contains a list.
empty :: Set a
empty = Set []
sing :: a -> Set a
sing x = Set [x]
Function to creat a set.
memSet :: (Eq a) => a -> Set a -> Bool
memSet _ (Set []) = False
memSet x (Set xs)
| elem x xs = True
| otherwise = False
{-
makeSet :: (Eq a) => [a] -> Set a
makeSet [] = empty
makeset (x:xs) = union (sing x) (makeSet xs)
-- etc
-- we need the obvious stuff:
union :: Set a -> Set a -> Set a
unionMult :: [ Set a ] -> Set a
intersection :: Set a -> Set a -> Set a
subSet :: Set a -> Set a -> Bool
mapSet :: (a -> b) -> Set a -> Set b
mapset f (Set xs) = makeSet (map f xs)
-}
-- now making it a monad:
instance Monad Set where
return = sing
(Set x) >>= f = unionMult (map f x)
Verification:
Left identity:
return a >>= f ≡ f a
Right identity:
m >>= return ≡ m
Associativity:
(m >>= f) >>= g ≡ m >>= (\x -> f x >>= g)
left:
return x >>= f
(Set [x]) >>= f
unionMult (map f [x])
unionMult [ (f x) ] = f x
right:
(Set [xs]) >>= return
unionMult (map return [xs])
unionMult [ys]
Set [xs]
Need help with the last one.

Answer 1

Since Set a is just a newtype around [a] lets use [] directly. The proofs will be similar so long as we use Set's instances; we'll be able to use []'s constructors (somewhat) directly. That's nice because then we can prove things inductively.
We want to show that for all xs :: [a] xs >>= return == xs. Let's first assume that xs == [].
[] >>= return
unionConcat (map return [])
unionConcat []
[]
Without defining unionConcat we can use this to show that unless unionConcat [] = [] holds, we can't get associativity. We'll keep that in mind for later.
Now we'll do the inductive step, assuming that we have some particular xs :: [a] where xs >>= return == xs, can we show that (x:xs) >>= return == x:xs?
(x:xs) >>= return
unionConcat (map return (x:xs))
unionConcat (return x : map return xs)
...
x : unionConcat (map return xs)
x : (xs >>= return)
x:xs -- working upward from the bottom here
Providing yet another property of unionConcat---
unionConcat (return x : xs) = x : unionConcat xs
So even before we have a definition of unionConcat we can already say that our properties will hold contingent on it following certain properties of its own. We ought to translate the (:) constructor back into a notion for sets, though.
unionConcat (return x : xs) = insert x (unionConcat xs)

Answer 2

unionConcat is already defined in Data.Set.... To be concrete, I will use the following definiitions in this proof
unionConcat = Data.Set.unions
return = Data.Set.fromList [a]
(I will use other functions defined in Data.Set here, some may require "Ord a", presumably that won't be a problem).
I also make use of the following properties
union x y = fromList (toList x ++ toList y)
concat . map (:[]) = id
The first states that the union of two sets can be obtained by taking a list of items in the set, concatinating them, then removing the repeats.... This follows from the definition of what a set is
The second property just states that concat and map (:[]) are inverses of each other. This should also be obvious from the definition of concat
map (:[]) [a, b, c, ....] = [[a], [b], [c], ....]
concat [[a], [b], [c], ....] = [a, b, c, ....]
(In order to really finish this proof, I would have to show that these properties follow from the Haskell definitions of (:[]), concat and union, but this is more detail that I think you want, and the actual definitions might change from version to version, so we will just have to assume that the writers of these functions followed the spirit of how sets and concat should work).
(In case it isn't obvious, remember the monkey operator (:[]) wraps single elements in brackets- (:[]) x = [x]).
Since "unions" is just a multiple appliction of "union", and "concat" is just a multiple application of (++), the first propterty can be generalized to
unions sets = fromList (concat $ map toLists sets)
Now for the proof-
y >>= return
= unions $ map return (toList y)
= unions $ map (fromList . (:[])) (toList y)
= unions $ map fromList $ map (:[]) (toList y)
= unions $ map fromList $ map (:[]) $ toList y
= fromList $ concat $ map toList $ map fromList $ map (:[]) (toList y)
= fromList $ concat $ map (:[]) (toList y)
= fromList $ toList y
= y
QED
Edit- See discussion below, I made a mistake and proved the wrong law (d'oh, I should have just read the title of the question :) ), so I am adding the correct one (associativity) below.
Two prove associativity, we need to use two properties....
property 1 - toList (x >>= f) = su (toList x >>=' toList . f)
property 2 - su (x >>=' f) = su (su x >>=' f)
where su sorts and uniqs a list, ie-
su [4,2,4,1] = [1,2,4],
and >>=' is the array bind operator,
x >>=' f = concat . map f x
The first property should be obvious.... It just states that you can get the result of x >>= f in two different ways, either by applying f to the values in the set x and taking the union, or to the exact same values in the corresponding list, and concating the values. The only hitch is that you might get repeat values in the list (the set couldn't even allow that), so you apply the su function on the right side to canonicalize the result (note that toList also outputs in the same form).
The second property states that if you sort/uniq a result at the end of a pipeline of binds, you can also perform it earlier in the pipeline without changing the answer. Again, this should be obvious.... Adding/removing duplicates or reordering the values with the initial list only add/removes duplicates or reorders the final result. But we are going to remove the duplicates and reorder at the end anyway, so it doesn't matter.
(A more rigorous proof of these two properties could be given based on the definitions of map/concat, toList, etc, but it would blow up the size of this posting.... I'll assume that everyone's intuition is strong enough and continue....)
Using these, I can now show you the proof. The general plan is to use the known associativity of the array bind operator, and the relationship of arrays with sets to show that the set bind operator must also be associative.
Since
toList set1 == toList set2
implies that
set1 == set2
I can prove
toList ((y >>= f) >>= g) = toList (y >>= (\x -> f x >>= g))
to get the desired result.
toList ((y >>= f) >>= g)
su (toList (y >>= f) >>=' toList . g) --by property 1
su (su (toList y >>=' toList . f) >>=' toList . g) --by property 1
su ((toList y >>=' toList . f) >>=' toList . g) --by property 2
su (toList y >>=' (\x -> (toList . f) x >>=' toList . g)) --by the associativity of the array bind operator
su (toList y >>=' (\x -> su (toList (f x) >>=' toList . g))) --by property 2 and associativity of (.)
su (toList y >>=' (\x -> toList (f x >>= g))) --by property 1
su (toList y >>=' toList (\x -> f x >>= g)) --by associativity of (.)
su (su (toList y >>=' toList (\x -> f x >>= g))) --by property 2
su (toList (y >>= (\x -> f x >>= g))) --by property 1
toList (y >>= (\x -> f x >>= g)) --because toList is already sorted/uniqued
QED

Answer 3

> U :: [Setx] --> Set x
>
> (m >>= f) >>= g ≡ m >>= (\x -> f x >>= g)
> VL(leftSide)
> (m >>= f) >>= g
> (Set x >>= f) >>=g <=>
> (U(map f x)) >>=g <=> (U(map f x)=Set y)
> Set y >>= g <=>
>
>
> HL:(right Side)
> m >>= (\x -> f x >>= g) <=>
> Set x >>=(\x -> f x >>= g) (funktionen \x -> f x gives a Set y it will consume value of x.)
But this prrof i wrong. (U= UnionMult.)
I was told that i should try to create a function conposition for both left side and right side. It will help in showing that right side and left side are equal.
HL: rightSide
VL leftSide
want to show VL==HL