4 ms·
Surely 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 fro
by pwdisswordfish2 6y ago
Surely 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 :)