Small fixes + version bump!

This fixes several issues:
fixes #42
fixes #45
fixes #53
fixes #60
fixes #69
fixes #70
fixes #36

src/content/0.0/Preface.tex

@@ -100,7 +100,7 @@
 
 \begin{figure}
 \centering
-\fbox{\includegraphics[width=3.12500in]{images/img_1299.jpg}}
+\includegraphics[width=70mm]{images/img_1299.jpg}
 \end{figure}
 
 One of the forces that are driving the big change is the multicore
@@ -131,7 +131,7 @@
 us to rethink the foundations of programming. Just like the builders of
 Europe's great gothic cathedrals we've been honing our craft to the
 limits of material and structure. There is an unfinished gothic
-\href{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beauvais_Cathedral}{cathedral in
+\urlref{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beauvais_Cathedral}{cathedral in
 Beauvais}, France, that stands witness to this deeply human struggle
 with limitations. It was intended to beat all previous records of height
 and lightness, but it suffered a series of collapses. Ad hoc measures
@@ -148,6 +148,6 @@
 
 \begin{figure}
 \centering
-\fbox{\includegraphics[totalheight=8cm]{images/beauvais_interior_supports.jpg}}
+\includegraphics[totalheight=8cm]{images/beauvais_interior_supports.jpg}
 \caption{Ad hoc measures preventing the Beauvais cathedral from collapsing.}
-\end{figure}
+\end{figure}

src/content/1.1/Category - The Essence of Composition.tex

@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
 why categories are so easy to represent pictorially. An object can be
 drawn as a circle or a point, and an arrow\ldots{} is an arrow. (Just
 for variety, I will occasionally draw objects as piggies and arrows as
-fireworks.) But the essence of a category is \newterm{composition}. Or, if you
+fireworks.) But the essence of a category is \emph{composition}. Or, if you
 prefer, the essence of composition is a category. Arrows compose, so
 if you have an arrow from object $A$ to object $B$, and another arrow from
 object $B$ to object $C$, then there must be an arrow --- their composition
@@ -17,17 +17,17 @@
 category because it’s missing identity morphisms (see later).}
 \end{figure}
 
-\section{Arrows as Functions}\label{arrows-as-functions}
+\section{Arrows as Functions}
 
 Is this already too much abstract nonsense? Do not despair. Let's talk
 concretes. Think of arrows, which are also called \newterm{morphisms}, as
-functions. You have a function \code{f} that takes an argument of type $A$ and
-returns a $B$. You have another function \code{g} that takes a $B$ and returns a $C$.
+functions. You have a function $f$ that takes an argument of type $A$ and
+returns a $B$. You have another function $g$ that takes a $B$ and returns a $C$.
 You can compose them by passing the result of $f$ to $g$. You have just
 defined a new function that takes an $A$ and returns a $C$.
 
 In math, such composition is denoted by a small circle between
-functions: \ensuremath{g \circ f}. Notice the right to left order of composition. For some
+functions: $g \circ f$. Notice the right to left order of composition. For some
 people this is confusing. You may be familiar with the pipe notation in
 Unix, as in:
 
@@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ \section{Arrows as Functions}\label{arrows-as-functions}
 \end{Verbatim}
 or the chevron \code{>>} in F\#, which both
 go from left to right. But in mathematics and in Haskell functions
-compose right to left. It helps if you read \(g \circ f\) as ``g \emph{after} f.''
+compose right to left. It helps if you read $g \circ f$ as ``g \emph{after} f.''
 
 Let's make this even more explicit by writing some C code. We have one
 function \code{f} that takes an argument of type \code{A} and
@@ -83,12 +83,12 @@ \section{Arrows as Functions}\label{arrows-as-functions}
 straightforward functional concepts in C++ is a little embarrassing. In
 fact, Haskell will let you use Unicode characters so you can write
 composition as:
-
+% don't 'mathify' this block
 \begin{Verbatim}
 g ◦ f
 \end{Verbatim}
 You can even use Unicode double colons and arrows:
-
+% don't 'mathify' this block
 \begin{Verbatim}[commandchars=\\\{\}]
 f \ensuremath{\Colon} A → B
 \end{Verbatim}
@@ -97,7 +97,7 @@ \section{Arrows as Functions}\label{arrows-as-functions}
 two types. You compose two functions by inserting a period between them
 (or a Unicode circle).
 
-\section{Properties of Composition}\label{properties-of-composition}
+\section{Properties of Composition}
 
 There are two extremely important properties that the composition in any
 category must satisfy.
@@ -108,7 +108,7 @@ \section{Properties of Composition}\label{properties-of-composition}
 that can be composed (that is, their objects match end-to-end), you
 don't need parentheses to compose them. In math notation this is
 expressed as:
-\[h\circ{}(g\circ{}f) = (h\circ{}g)\circ{}f = h\circ{}g\circ{}f\]
+\[h \circ (g \circ f) = (h \circ g) \circ f = h \circ g \circ f\]
 In (pseudo) Haskell:
 
 \begin{Verbatim}
@@ -186,7 +186,7 @@ \section{Properties of Composition}\label{properties-of-composition}
 Romans had a number system without a zero and they were able to build
 excellent roads and aqueducts, some of which survive to this day.
 
-Neutral values like zero or \code{id} are extremely useful when
+Neutral values like zero or $\id$ are extremely useful when
 working with symbolic variables. That's why Romans were not very good at
 algebra, whereas the Arabs and the Persians, who were familiar with the
 concept of zero, were. So the identity function becomes very handy as an
@@ -198,8 +198,7 @@ \section{Properties of Composition}\label{properties-of-composition}
 Arrows can be composed, and the composition is associative. Every object
 has an identity arrow that serves as a unit under composition.
 
-\section{Composition is the Essence of
-Programming}\label{composition-is-the-essence-of-programming}
+\section{Composition is the Essence of Programming}
 
 Functional programmers have a peculiar way of approaching problems. They
 start by asking very Zen-like questions. For instance, when designing an
@@ -223,7 +222,7 @@ \section{Composition is the Essence of
 imposed on us by computers. It reflects the limitations of the human
 mind. Our brains can only deal with a small number of concepts at a
 time. One of the most cited papers in psychology,
-\href{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Magical_Number_Seven,_Plus_or_Minus_Two}{The
+\urlref{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Magical_Number_Seven,_Plus_or_Minus_Two}{The
 Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two}, postulated that we can only
 keep $7 \pm 2$ ``chunks'' of information in our minds. The details of our
 understanding of the human short-term memory might be changing, but we
@@ -263,7 +262,7 @@ \section{Composition is the Essence of
 understand how to compose it with other objects, you've lost the
 advantages of your programming paradigm.
 
-\section{Challenges}\label{challenges}
+\section{Challenges}
 
 \begin{enumerate}
 \tightlist

src/content/1.10/Natural Transformations.tex

@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
 
 \begin{wrapfigure}[13]{R}{0pt}
 \raisebox{0pt}[\dimexpr\height-0.75\baselineskip\relax]{
-\fbox{\includegraphics[width=60mm]{images/1_functors.jpg}}}%
+\includegraphics[width=60mm]{images/1_functors.jpg}}%
 \end{wrapfigure}
 
 \noindent
@@ -29,7 +29,7 @@
 
 \begin{figure}[H]
 \centering
-\fbox{\includegraphics[width=80mm]{images/2_natcomp.jpg}}
+\includegraphics[width=80mm]{images/2_natcomp.jpg}
 \end{figure}
 
 \noindent
@@ -131,7 +131,7 @@
 a natural transformation whose components are all isomorphisms
 (invertible morphisms).
 
-\section{Polymorphic Functions}\label{polymorphic-functions}
+\section{Polymorphic Functions}
 
 We talked about the role of functors (or, more specifically,
 endofunctors) in programming. They correspond to type constructors that
@@ -355,7 +355,7 @@ \section{Polymorphic Functions}\label{polymorphic-functions}
 \end{Verbatim}
 There are only two of these, \code{dumb} and \code{obvious}:
 
-\begin{Verbatim}[commandchars=\\\{\}]
+\begin{Verbatim}
 dumb (Reader _) = Nothing
 \end{Verbatim}
 and
@@ -371,7 +371,7 @@ \section{Polymorphic Functions}\label{polymorphic-functions}
 and \code{Just ()}. We'll come back to the Yoneda lemma later ---
 this was just a little teaser.
 
-\section{Beyond Naturality}\label{beyond-naturality}
+\section{Beyond Naturality}
 
 A parametrically polymorphic function between two functors (including
 the edge case of the \code{Const} functor) is always a natural
@@ -441,7 +441,7 @@ \section{Beyond Naturality}\label{beyond-naturality}
 transformations, called dinatural transformations, that deals with such
 cases. We'll get to them when we discuss ends.
 
-\section{Functor Category}\label{functor-category}
+\section{Functor Category}
 
 Now that we have mappings between functors --- natural transformations
 --- it's only natural to ask the question whether functors form a
@@ -550,7 +550,7 @@ \section{Functor Category}\label{functor-category}
 $\cat{D^C}$ is a category, which we can identify with the
 functor category between $\cat{C}$ and $\cat{D}$.
 
-\section{2-Categories}\label{categories}
+\section{2-Categories}
 
 With that out of the way, let's have a closer look at $\Cat$. By
 definition, any Hom-set in $\Cat$ is a set of functors. But, as we
@@ -748,7 +748,7 @@ \section{Conclusion}
 they become sources and targets of morphisms: natural transformations. A
 natural transformation is a special type of polymorphic function.
 
-\section{Challenges}\label{challenges}
+\section{Challenges}
 
 \begin{enumerate}
 \tightlist
@@ -780,7 +780,7 @@ \section{Challenges}\label{challenges}
 \end{Verbatim}
 and
 
-\begin{Verbatim}[commandchars=\\\{\}]
+\begin{Verbatim}
 f :: String -> Int
 f x = read x
 \end{Verbatim}

src/content/1.2/Types and Functions.tex

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 \lettrine[lhang=0.17]{T}{he category of types and functions} plays an important role in
 programming, so let's talk about what types are and why we need them.
 
-\section{Who Needs Types?}\label{who-needs-types}
+\section{Who Needs Types?}
 
 There seems to be some controversy about the advantages of static vs.
 dynamic and strong vs. weak typing. Let me illustrate these choices with
@@ -35,8 +35,7 @@ \section{Who Needs Types?}\label{who-needs-types}
 once Romeo is declared a human being, he doesn't sprout leaves or trap
 photons in his powerful gravitational field.
 
-\section{Types Are About
-Composability}\label{types-are-about-composability}
+\section{Types Are About Composability}
 
 Category theory is about composing arrows. But not any two arrows can be
 composed. The target object of one arrow must be the same as the source
@@ -95,7 +94,7 @@ \section{Types Are About
 almost always a probabilistic rather than a deterministic process.
 Testing is a poor substitute for proof.
 
-\section{What Are Types?}\label{what-are-types}
+\section{What Are Types?}
 
 The simplest intuition for types is that they are sets of values. The
 type \code{Bool} (remember, concrete types start with a capital letter
@@ -147,7 +146,7 @@ \section{What Are Types?}\label{what-are-types}
 scientists came up with a brilliant idea, or a major hack, depending on
 your point of view, to extend every type by one more special value
 called the \newterm{bottom} and denoted by \code{\_|\_}, or
-Unicode \ensuremath{\bot}. This ``value'' corresponds to a non-terminating computation.
+Unicode $\bot$. This ``value'' corresponds to a non-terminating computation.
 So a function declared as:
 
 \begin{Verbatim}
@@ -180,7 +179,7 @@ \section{What Are Types?}\label{what-are-types}
 functions, which return valid results for every possible argument.
 
 Because of the bottom, you'll see the category of Haskell types and
-functions referred to as \textbf{Hask} rather than $\Set$. From
+functions referred to as $\cat{Hask}$ rather than $\Set$. From
 the theoretical point of view, this is the source of never-ending
 complications, so at this point I will use my butcher's knife and
 terminate this line of reasoning. From the pragmatic point of view, it's
@@ -189,8 +188,7 @@ \section{What Are Types?}\label{what-are-types}
 John Hughes, Patrik Jansson, Jeremy Gibbons, \href{http://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/jeremy.gibbons/publications/fast+loose.pdf}{
 Fast and Loose Reasoning is Morally Correct}. This paper provides justification for ignoring bottoms in most contexts.}
 
-\section{Why Do We Need a Mathematical
-Model?}\label{why-do-we-need-a-mathematical-model}
+\section{Why Do We Need a Mathematical Model?}
 
 As a programmer you are intimately familiar with the syntax and grammar
 of your programming language. These aspects of the language are usually
@@ -283,7 +281,7 @@ \section{Why Do We Need a Mathematical
 appreciate the thought that functions and algorithms from the Haskell
 standard library come with proofs of correctness.
 
-\section{Pure and Dirty Functions}\label{pure-and-dirty-functions}
+\section{Pure and Dirty Functions}
 
 The things we call functions in C++ or any other imperative language,
 are not the same things mathematicians call functions. A mathematical
@@ -311,7 +309,7 @@ \section{Pure and Dirty Functions}\label{pure-and-dirty-functions}
 all kinds of effects using only pure functions. So we really don't lose
 anything by restricting ourselves to mathematical functions.
 
-\section{Examples of Types}\label{examples-of-types}
+\section{Examples of Types}
 
 Once you realize that types are sets, you can think of some rather
 exotic types. For instance, what's the type corresponding to an empty
@@ -384,8 +382,8 @@ \section{Examples of Types}\label{examples-of-types}
 mathematical sense of the word. A pure function that returns unit does
 nothing: it discards its argument.
 
-Mathematically, a function from a set A to a singleton set maps every
-element of A to the single element of that singleton set. For every A
+Mathematically, a function from a set $A$ to a singleton set maps every
+element of $A$ to the single element of that singleton set. For every $A$
 there is exactly one such function. Here's this function for
 \code{Integer}:
 
@@ -458,7 +456,7 @@ \section{Examples of Types}\label{examples-of-types}
 have the form \code{ctype::is(alpha, c)},
 \code{ctype::is(digit, c)}, etc.
 
-\section{Challenges}\label{challenges}
+\section{Challenges}
 
 \begin{enumerate}
 \tightlist