diff --git a/_drafts/the-algebra-in-algebraic-datatypes.md b/_drafts/the-algebra-in-algebraic-datatypes.md
index 0c0d67a..5c91593 100644
--- a/_drafts/the-algebra-in-algebraic-datatypes.md
+++ b/_drafts/the-algebra-in-algebraic-datatypes.md
@@ -7,22 +7,110 @@ In this post I will explore the algebraic properties of Haskell's types, give an
 
 <!--more-->
 
-# Algebra on types in Haskell
-* Basic algebraic properties
-  * Products, Either, Functions
-  * Non-recursive datatypes
-  * Algebraic equivalences over types
+{% katexmm %}
+
+# What do types have to do with algebra?
+
+The first step to modeling Haskell's datatypes algebraically is to build an intution for why such a thing should be possible in the first place. In order to motivate this we shall give an interpretation of some haskell types into sums, products, and exponents on numbers.
+
+We shall make the following intepretation:
+* `Either a b`, the disjoint sum type, is interpteted as $a + b$.
+
+* `(a, b)`, the product type, is interpteted as $a \cdot b$.
+
+* `a -> b`, the function type is interpteted as $b^a$.
+
+We will motivate this interpretation by considering the cardinality, or the number of elements of a type. For example, `()` has cardinality 1, and `Bool` has cardinality two. Now then, what is the cardinality of `Either a b`, given that `a` and `b` have cardinalities $n$ and $m$? Well, there are two ways of constructing a value of `Either a b`, `Left :: a -> Either a b` or `Right :: b -> Either a b`. We can construct $n$ elements using `Left`, since we have $n$ elements of `a`, and $m$ elements using right, as there are $m$ elements of `b`. Then in total we can construct $m + n$ elements of `Either a b`. Likewise we will see that in the case of `(a, b)` we will have $n$ choices for the first element, and then for each element of type `a` we will have another $m$ choices for the element of type `b`, yielding $n \cdot m$ elements in total. The function type being exponentiation might seem more archaic, but by defining equality of functions and using some basic combinatronics we can make perfect sense of it. If we consider two functions equal given that for every input they give the same output (a principle known as function extensionality) we will see that the way to enumerate the amount of elements of a function type is to enumerate how many different ways we can pick outputs for all our inputs. Consider then, any function `f :: a -> b` for each of the $n$ elements `αᵢ : a` we can choose $m$ different elements of `b` to send `f αⱼ` to. Thus we are making $n$ repeated choices of $m$ elements, yielding $m^n$ different options.
+
+If we let `| a |` denote the cardinality of `a`, then we can write what we just learned quite succintly.
+
+* `| Either a b |` = `| a | + | b |`
+
+* `| (a, b) |` = `| a | · | b |`
+
+* `| a -> b |` = `| b | ^ | a |`
+
+You may notice the pattern of how we replace the operation (`Either` to `+`, `(,)` to `·`, `->` to `^`) and move the interpretation function (in this case `|_|`) onto the respective arguments. In algebra such a function is called a homomorphism, it's a function which preserves structure, or alternatively, let's us interpret structure in a new domain, here we can reinterpret the structure of our types in numbers, in a way which plays nice with our operations on either side.
+  
+# Some algebraic properties of types
+
+Now that we've established that we can interpret some of our types in numbers, we may ask of ourselfs if our types fufill some of the same algebraic identities as our numbers. We will revisit some agebraic laws you probably learned long ago and see if we can restate them in Haskell using types.
+
+First let's visit the distributive law of addition and multiplication:
+
+* $a · (b + c) = a · b + a · c$
+
+Now, in Haskell we cannot prove equality of types, instead we shall construct an isomorphism, or bijection between our types, a function with an inverse such that their compositio is the identity. Constructing these functions corresponds to creating two functions
+
+```hs
+f   :: (a, Either b c) -> Either (a, b) (a, c)
+f⁻¹ :: Either (a, b) (a, c) -> (a, Either b c)
+```
+
+and proving that
+
+```hs
+f . f⁻¹ = id
+f⁻¹ . f = id
+```
+
+we construct
+
+```
+f   :: (a, Either b c) -> Either (a, b) (a, c)
+f   (a, Left b) = Left (a, b)
+f   (a, Right c) = Right (a, c)
+
+f⁻¹ :: Either (a, b) (a, c) -> (a, Either b c)
+f⁻¹ Left (a, b) = (a, Left b)
+f⁻¹ Right (a, c) = (a, Right c)
+```
+
+Proving these are inverses is quite trivial (hint: compare the patterns) and left as an exercise to the reader ;).
+
+The real interesting identities, however, are those to do with exponents, we shall prove that the haskell equivalent of the following exponent laws hold:
+
+* $a^b \cdot a^c = a^{b+c}$
+
+* $(a^b)^c = a^{c \cdot b}$
+
+Corresponding to creating the following two Haskell functions, and their inverses
+
+```hs
+f :: (b -> a, c -> a) -> Either b c -> a
+g :: (c -> (b -> a)) -> (c, b) -> a
+```
+
+We can define `f` as follows
+
+```hs
+f :: (b -> a, c -> a) -> Either b c -> a
+f (f, g) (Left b) = f b
+f (f, g) (Right c) = g c
+```
+
+Interestingly, `g` turns out to be usefull when programming, and is already defined in the prelude!
+
+```hs
+g :: (c -> (b -> a)) -> (c, b) -> a
+g = uncurry
+```
+
+This time I shall be evil and leave finding the inverses as an exercise for you as well!
 	
 # Thinking with functions
-* Towards category theory
-  * Initial objects
-  * Generalized elements
-
-# From functions to morphisms
 * What is a category?
   * All about morphisms
   * Explain commuting diagrams somewhere here?
   * Products
+
+  * Initial objects
+  * Generalized elements
+
+Now that we've unconvered some interesting algebraic properties of types in Haskell we'll begin working our way towards category theory, which let's us make these notions formal. In doing so we'll need to switch our perspective from types to functions, as category is all about inspecting connections between things rather than the objects themselfs.
+
+We do however, of course, want to be able to talk about elements of types still, however we will do so using functions. An element of the type `a` will be modelled by a function of type `() -> a`, Using our cardinality view we can see this makes sense as `| () -> a | = | a | ^ | () | = | a | ^ 1 = | a |`.
+
   * Sums
   * Exponents
 
@@ -60,3 +148,5 @@ In this post I will explore the algebraic properties of Haskell's types, give an
 	* natural transformations
   * relate monoid example from before
   * multiplication given by composition instead of $\times$
+
+{% endkatexmm %}