Firstly, what does "wrong category" mean? In the category of vector spaces, every object is equipped with a commutative binary + operator. We can make no such assumption in Haskell. What's more, Haskell doesn't easily allow us to restrict type constructors to instances of Num say. So we can't easily implement monads in the category of vector spaces as instances of Haskell's
As I've mentioned on #haskell, convolution is comonadic. A convolution (more specifically, a discrete convolution) is a function that maps a (doubly infinite) sequence of real numbers to another such sequence of real numbers in such a way that each number in the new sequence is a weighted sum of numbers in the old sequence and the weights depend only on the relative positions of the numbers. For example: replacing each number in the sequence with the average of it and its neighbours is a convolution.
Here's a simple example. Consider the sequence ...0,0,1,2,3,0,0,... We'll replace each number with the sum of its neighbours and twice itself. So this maps to ...,0,0+0+1,0+2*1+2,1+2*2+3,2+2*3+0,3+2*0+0,0,... The structure of this computation is very similar to the structure of cellular automaton evaluation and we can reuse that code here:
> data Zipper a = Zipper [a] [a] deriving (Eq,Show)
> left (Zipper (a:as) bs) = Zipper as (a:bs)
> right (Zipper as (b:bs)) = Zipper (b:as) bs
> class Comonad w where
> coreturn :: w a -> a
> cobind :: (w a -> b) -> w a -> w b
> iterate1 f x = tail $ iterate f x
> instance Comonad Zipper where
> cobind f a = fmap f $ Zipper (iterate1 left a) (iterate right a)
> coreturn (Zipper _ (b:_)) = b
> a = Zipper (repeat 0) ([0,1,2,3]++repeat 0)
> f (Zipper (a:_) (b:c:_)) = a+2*b+c
> test = let Zipper u v = cobind f a in take 5 v
When we run test we get [1,4,8,8,3].
Now think about the structure of this computation. We write a function f that gathers up the value at a cell and its neighbours and computes the weighted sum. cobind then applies this function all the way through our sequence to get our result. The important thing is that f pulls in the data it needs, distilling it down to one value, and that's why it has type Zipper a -> a.
There's another approach to convolution. We could push or scatter data. At each point in the sequence we could take the value and push one copy left, one copy right, and leave double the original value in place. Each cell will end up with three values left in it and all we have to do is sum the values deposited in a cell. What we want therefore is to take a value in a cell, of type a, and generate an entire zipper full of values pushed from it, ie. a Zipper a. We'd then like bind for the monad to sum over the returned zippers, staggering them right and left as appropriate. Here's a table illustrating what I mean:
0 -> 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 -> 0 1 2 1 0 0
2 -> 0 0 2 4 2 0
3 -> 0 0 0 3 6 3
0 -> 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 4 8 8 3
Unfortunately, as I pointed out above, bind for a monad can't perform summations, so I have to define bind' and return' instead.
> plus (Zipper a b) (Zipper a' b') = Zipper (plus' a a') (plus' b b') where
> plus' (a:as) (b:bs) = (a+b) : plus' as bs
> plus' a  = a
> plus'  a = a
Note that I'm going to assume that elements past the end of a list (so to speak) actually represent zero and define new versions of left and right that produce the required zeros on demand:
> left' (Zipper (a:as) bs) = Zipper as (a:bs)
> left' (Zipper  bs) = Zipper  (0:bs)
> right' (Zipper as (b:bs)) = Zipper (b:as) bs
> right' (Zipper as ) = Zipper (0:as) 
> tail'  = 
> tail' a = tail a
> stagger f  = 
> stagger f (x:xs) = x : map f (stagger f xs)
> stagger1 f x = tail' (stagger f x)
> instance Functor Zipper where
> fmap f (Zipper a b) = Zipper (map f a) (map f b)
Here's our fake monad:
> return' a = Zipper  [a]
> bind' f x = let Zipper a b = fmap f x
> in foldl1 plus (stagger left' b ++ stagger1 right' a)
> a' = Zipper  [0,1,2,3]
> f' x = Zipper [x] [2*x,x]
> test' = let Zipper u v = bind' f' a' in take 5 v
Run test' and we get the same result as before by a quite different method.
You should be able to see that in some sense comonads describe lazy computations and monads represent strict ones. In strict languages you evaluate your arguments first, and then push them into a function. In lazy languages you call the function first, and it pulls in the value of its arguments as needed. In fact, in Haskell we have a strictness monad and in ocaml you can implement a lazy comonad. By and large, it's easier to write pull algorithms in Haskell. Push algorithms are much easier to implement in a language with side effects. In fact, one of the things that Haskell beginners need to learn is how to rewrite push algorithms as pull algorithms and eliminate those side effects.
What I think is interesting here is that this dichotomy between push and pull, scatter and gather, is pervasive all the way through computing, and it's quite pretty that this deep notion it can be captured nicely by a(n almost) monad and a comonad. Just to give an illustration of how pervasive it is consider 3D rendering. We typically want to take a list of primitives and turn it into an array of pixels. If we rasterise we push the primitives, asking for each primitive, what pixels does it cover. If we ray-trace we pull on the pixels asking, for each one, what primitives cover it. Many optimisations to both of these approaches consist of making judicious decisions about which part of the pipeline should be switched from push to pull or vice versa.
BTW I have an algorithm for automatically converting some types of pull algorithm into push algorithms and vice versa. It's another one of those papers that I keep meaning to finish and submit for publication one day...