5 ms·

>but it isn’t exactly as friendly to the non-mathematicians as advertised. i really chafe at criticisms like this given how much effort was clearly invested by

>but it isn’t exactly as friendly to the non-mathematicians as advertised. i really chafe at criticisms like this given how much effort was clearly invested by those authors in that book being readable - there are ample definitions (and clearly offset), tons of diagrams, instructive examples, solutions to many exercises, pointers to further readings, motivation and discussion. is the thing that bothers you that there's formal mathematics? it's a math book. i feel like your same criticism translated into a criticism about a programming book would be something like "this book is too unfriendly to people that don't program because it has lots of code and expects people to be able to read code". i don't understand what exactly would qualify for you as "friendly"? >category theory for the average programmer. that's because despite what people would have you believe - category theory isn't for programmers but mathematicians. so a book like that would be like a book about fluid dynamics for plumbers (read: impossible).

albedoa 7y ago
> "this book is too unfriendly to people that don't program because it has lots of code and expects people to be able to read code" That would be a perfectly valid response to the claim that the book "is very clear and friendly for non-coders". I don't understand why you are chafed.
- throwlaplace 7y ago
  what kind of book that teaches programming could possibly have no code in it? that's not just "friendly" that's completely completely lacking substance.
  - albedoa 7y ago
    I imagine everyone agrees with you on that. You responded to an objection to a characterization of the book, not a criticism of the book for failing to match that characterization nor a claim that a book on the topic should be able to match it.
    - throwlaplace 7y ago
      you're not getting me >That would be a perfectly valid response to the claim that the book "is very clear and friendly for non-coders". no it wouldn't because it would be vacuously misplaced because there is no such book that aims to teach programming (friendly or not) and doesn't have code.
      - albedoa 7y ago
        I am absolutely getting you. The person you responded to did not make the claim that such a book exists. He challenged the idea that the book in question is an example of such a book.
74639497 7y ago
>is the thing that bothers you that there's formal mathematics No. I like formal mathematics. The audience of this book includes “motivated high school student who hasn’t seen calculus yet“. IMO the book fails here. The average high schooler won’t understand this book on their own. This book is excellent if you already have an understanding of abstract algebra or higher level mathematics though, which is why I said it’s probably one of the best introduction to Category theory text out there. The topics covered in this book are great. This is a really outstanding book.
- throwlaplace 7y ago
  compare >The average high schooler with >motivated high school student certainly we all underestimate the difficulty of material (obverse of the dunning-krueger effect) but it says it does at least hint at it right there. but honestly i'm curious where in the book you see an example of a term or notion that isn't defined in situ? as usual (with all of these things) mathematical maturity is what's required rather than familiarity with the material. what this means is a sense for why definitions are written in the way that they are, which hypotheses in theorems capture the phenomenon and which are technical, which lemmata can be ignored on first reading, etc. this is a very hard thing to communicate, especially in text, but this book does do its best to make that not-overwhelming as possible with ample restatements of definitions and assumptions and diagrams.

albedoa 7y ago

> "this book is too unfriendly to people that don't program because it has lots of code and expects people to be able to read code" That would be a perfectly valid response to the claim that the book "is very clear and friendly for non-coders". I don't understand why you are chafed.

throwlaplace 7y ago
what kind of book that teaches programming could possibly have no code in it? that's not just "friendly" that's completely completely lacking substance.
- albedoa 7y ago
  I imagine everyone agrees with you on that. You responded to an objection to a characterization of the book, not a criticism of the book for failing to match that characterization nor a claim that a book on the topic should be able to match it.
  - throwlaplace 7y ago
    you're not getting me >That would be a perfectly valid response to the claim that the book "is very clear and friendly for non-coders". no it wouldn't because it would be vacuously misplaced because there is no such book that aims to teach programming (friendly or not) and doesn't have code.
    - albedoa 7y ago
      I am absolutely getting you. The person you responded to did not make the claim that such a book exists. He challenged the idea that the book in question is an example of such a book.

74639497 7y ago

>is the thing that bothers you that there's formal mathematics No. I like formal mathematics. The audience of this book includes “motivated high school student who hasn’t seen calculus yet“. IMO the book fails here. The average high schooler won’t understand this book on their own. This book is excellent if you already have an understanding of abstract algebra or higher level mathematics though, which is why I said it’s probably one of the best introduction to Category theory text out there. The topics covered in this book are great. This is a really outstanding book.

throwlaplace 7y ago
compare >The average high schooler with >motivated high school student certainly we all underestimate the difficulty of material (obverse of the dunning-krueger effect) but it says it does at least hint at it right there. but honestly i'm curious where in the book you see an example of a term or notion that isn't defined in situ? as usual (with all of these things) mathematical maturity is what's required rather than familiarity with the material. what this means is a sense for why definitions are written in the way that they are, which hypotheses in theorems capture the phenomenon and which are technical, which lemmata can be ignored on first reading, etc. this is a very hard thing to communicate, especially in text, but this book does do its best to make that not-overwhelming as possible with ample restatements of definitions and assumptions and diagrams.