{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreiafgsam55ixdkxqdmcmqwvu45idlrkw27w4ojpbest3sowwbk4dyu",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:pi6woz4d47bkuws673w2il2r/app.bsky.feed.post/3mjs7dj4wf4b2"
  },
  "path": "/t/lawvere-theories/13944#post_11",
  "publishedAt": "2026-04-18T19:34:01.000Z",
  "site": "https://discourse.haskell.org",
  "textContent": "mixphix:\n\n> The laws aren’t always so tightly coupled to the signature\n\nWhat I meant by _coupled_ is: Just by looking at the constructors of `EqLaw` alone one can not learn how many operations there are in `Eq` and what their aritites are. You need to look at how the constructors are used in `lawful`.\nYet I agree that Lawvere’s way is far too complicated to be practically useful for Haskell type class hierarchies. I actually do not know whether Lawvere came up with this just for descriptive purposes or whether something genuinely new arose out of it.",
  "title": "Lawvere theories"
}