18 ms·
I would expect a theory that has been a ‘work in progress’ for some five years now to have a readily available, comprehensible introduction to its basic concept
by pwdisswordfish2 6y ago
I would expect a theory that has been a ‘work in progress’ for some five years now to have a readily available, comprehensible introduction to its basic concepts and motivation at the very least. I am yet to see such.
- adamnemecek 6y agoThe theory is still changing. Five years is not that long of time period.
- bo1024 6y agoSome research papers at least?
- pwdisswordfish2 6y agoSurely it can’t be changing so much that it’s impossible to produce an accessible explanation of the fundamentals. For comparison, it took about four years from Voevodsky formulating the univalence axiom to the publication of the HoTT book.
- adamnemecek 6y agoHow long did it take Voevodsky to write the coq proofs? Path semantics is very much tied to programming and in the process, Sven has created several programming languages to explore the idea. Also, in the mean time he has worked on other things.
- pwdisswordfish2 6y agoWorking on other things didn’t seem to stop him from writing 399 single-page papers, all of which are full of undefined, nonstandard notation and prose that reads like the output of GPT-2: https://github.com/advancedresearch/path_semantics/tree/master/papers-wip/ https://github.com/advancedresearch/path_semantics/tree/mast... If that time were spent on writing just one, but clearly written explanation of the core idea, I might have been more sympathetic to the project. As it is though, ‘path semantics’ is an exercise in obscurantism at best and in psychoceramics at worst.
- YeGoblynQueenne 6y agoHarsh, but I had fun reading about J.S. Carberry in Wikipedia :)