# Getting an intuition around why we can call contramap a pullback

17 Oct 2019 (Note: this is an entry in my technical diary. There will likely be typos, mistakes, or wider logical leaps—the intent here is to “[let] others look over my shoulder while I figure things out.”)Last October, Brandon and Stephen reintroduced `contramap`

—covered in episode 14—as `pullback`

.

(The analog for the Haskell peeps is `Contravariant`

’s `contramap`

requirement.)

However, the name

`contramap`

isn’t fantastic. In one way it’s nice because it is indeed the contravariant version of map. It has basically the same shape as`map`

, it’s just that the arrow flips the other direction. Even so, the term may seem a little overly-jargony and may turn people off to the idea entirely, and that would be a real shame.

Luckily, there’s a concept in math that is far more general than the idea of contravariance, and in the case of functions is precisely

`contramap`

. And even better it has a great name. It’s called the pullback. Intuitively it expresses the idea of pulling a structure back along a function to another structure.

I had trouble getting an intuition around why `contramap`

’ing is a pullback, in the categorical sense and here’s why (mirroring a recent Twitter thread):

@pointfreeco—Hey y’all 👋🏽 I’m a tad confused when it comes to grounding the canonical pullback diagram with types and functions between them. (Pardon the rough sketch hah, I forgot my LaTeX and this was more fun. 😄) /1

Pullbacks, generally, seem to give two morphisms and objects worth of freedom—

`f`

,`g`

,`X`

, and`Y`

—whereas in code, we almost always seem to pullback along one [path across] the square. /2

Do y’all call this operation pullback because there isn’t a restriction preventing

`f`

from equaling`g`

and`X`

equaling`Y`

(collapsing the square into a linear diagram)? /3

Yesterday, Eureka Zhu cleared up my confusion on why we don’t take the upper path through pullback’s definitional diagram:

In [the]

`Set`

[category], the pullback of`f: a -> c`

along`g: b -> c`

is`{ (a, b) | f a = g b }`

, which is sometimes undecidable in Haskell [and by extension, Swift].

Hand-waving past `Hask`

and `Swift`

not quite being categories, we reason about them through the category `Set`

.

And Zhu points out that a pullback in `Set`

requires us to equate two functions, `f`

and `g`

in the diagram above, for a subset of inputs and that’s undecidable in programming.

How do we get around this?

Well, setting `X`

to be `Y`

and `f`

to `g`

:

Since pure functions equal themselves, we can sidestep that undecidability by collapsing the diagram. Wickedly clever.

That’s how pullback’s flexibility allows us to consider `contramap`

as a specialization of it.