<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>A Representation Theorem for Second-Order Functionals · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1402.1699/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1402.1699/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>A Representation Theorem for Second-Order Functionals — mentioned by rssoconnor</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33805923</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1402.1699:33805923</guid><pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov 2022 19:08:27 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Apologies for the jargon, but there isn&amp;#x27;t room in a comment box for a detailed explanation. &amp;quot;The Essence of the Iterator Pattern&amp;quot;[0] posed an open problem in type theory as to whether or not &amp;quot;lawful traversals&amp;quot;, of type `∀ F:Applicative. (X -&amp;gt; F X) -&amp;gt; (B -&amp;gt; F B)` could appear for anything other than what is called a &amp;quot;finitary container&amp;quot;[1], B := ∃S. X^(P S) where the (P S) is a natural number (or equivalently a polynomial functor B := ∃n. C_n * X^n). Or rather, there was an open question as to what laws are needed so that &amp;quot;lawful traversals&amp;quot; would imply that B is a finitary container.…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1402.1699/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.PL</category></item></channel></rss>
