5 ms·

Just a nice set of ideas to be used for social signalling. In with type systems, a typeclass is all you need. The mantra is "to be an X (being substituted for

Just a nice set of ideas to be used for social signalling. In with type systems, a typeclass is all you need. The mantra is "to be an X (being substituted for an X) is to be able to perform (implement) such and such actions (or have this or that biochemical properties). It is that general, that deep, it could be even seen in molecular biology. Category theory, on the other hand, is just a few nested abstract concepts, of which only monoid has some connection to reality, which ends up empty, like most abstract pseudo- philosophical bullshit. And yes, I have watched and read everything by Bartosz. It is empty.

platz 6y ago
There are a lot of claims made to try to apply CT to programming; I agree most of that effort is overhyped. But CT in general has nothing to do with programming, it's proper role is in pure mathematics
bordercases 6y ago
Hi Karma.
- johndoe42377 6y ago
  This is the first time someone recognised me. By writing style, I suppose.
  - bordercases 6y ago
    I've read a lot of your work and appreciate it. I don't agree with all of it. But all of it is good. And indeed you have a distinct style.
myWindoonn 6y ago
Every type theory gives a categorical logic [0]. Category theory is all about describing the structures which definitely exist around mathematical objects even if we don't acknowledge them very often. This isn't social signalling; I'm not posting under my real name and I'm not trying to get accolades. This is mathematics; we teach it to each other. [0] https://mikeshulman.github.io/catlog/catlog.pdf https://mikeshulman.github.io/catlog/catlog.pdf
- johndoe42377 6y ago
  I would claim that such structures are imaginary, not structures at all, and the whole field is a sect (a socially constructed movement based on sectarian consensus which regards "knowledge" of details of abstractions, which does not make any sense outside of sectarian contexts). Let's talk the most basic algebraic laws. Yes, there is indeed no difference in adding 2 apples to 3 apples, or adding 3 of them to 2. The question is from which pile to start, and the result is the same. (Multiplication, being just repeated addition, is also obvious - there is really no difference which side of a rectangle comes first). Notice, that there is still a fundamental connection to reality. Adding C to O has exactly the same properties. There is no difference which comes first. The identity element is more tricky, because nothing of this sort existed in nature. Nature has distinct start and stop sequence, and does structural pattern matching in the literal sense. So, we would superimpose an element upon reality which lacks it, the same way as it goes with zero. Let's say, that trying to add what's can't be added (by physical properties) produces no change to the original element, and it is equivalent to addition of a zero. Generalising this noop we will get something similar to identify. 1 for multiplication, is natural , while an identify matrix is an artificial construction. Okay, this is all common sense. The important thing that there is literally nothing deeper than this shaky generalisation which we call monoid. First, because only addition and multiplication are "true monoid". Protein production by an enzyme is almost it, but no identity. There is no identities outside your head. A list is a monoid because of added '() - the empty list, which, again, does not exist anywhere. There is no such thing as an empty DNA sequence, empty molecule, etc. I could go on, but maybe you already see where it goes. Everything is imaginary and too abstract to have any applicable, meaningful context.
  - myWindoonn 6y ago
    This sounds facetious. After all, the humble empty set is not physical either, and yet most set theorists will claim that it is Platonically real. More generally, mathematics is a social construction, yes. The word literally means "things we teach each other", and the defining quality of mathematical facts is that they are non-obvious but can be verified for oneself without any additional help or context. Denying the usefulness of category theory will only make theoretical physics harder. It doesn't make physics any simpler. Edit: I was going to just link you to the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, but I'll spell out the definitions explicitly instead. A formal logic is a system with some propositions and some deductive rules. Each rule takes a (family of) propositions and sends them to new propositions, changing their syntax but not their truth. Rules may be composed associatively, and for each proposition, there is a trivial identity rule which changes nothing. This is a category, right? So every formal logic has a corresponding category whose objects represent its propositions and whose arrows represent its rules.
Koshkin 6y ago
There is nothing wrong with abstract thinking. It is indeed useful. It is, in fact, one of the things that separate the higher animal species like humans from the rest.
- johndoe42377 6y ago
  This is the social signalling I am talking about.

platz 6y ago

There are a lot of claims made to try to apply CT to programming; I agree most of that effort is overhyped. But CT in general has nothing to do with programming, it's proper role is in pure mathematics

bordercases 6y ago

Hi Karma.

johndoe42377 6y ago
This is the first time someone recognised me. By writing style, I suppose.
- bordercases 6y ago
  I've read a lot of your work and appreciate it. I don't agree with all of it. But all of it is good. And indeed you have a distinct style.

myWindoonn 6y ago

Every type theory gives a categorical logic [0]. Category theory is all about describing the structures which definitely exist around mathematical objects even if we don't acknowledge them very often. This isn't social signalling; I'm not posting under my real name and I'm not trying to get accolades. This is mathematics; we teach it to each other. [0] https://mikeshulman.github.io/catlog/catlog.pdf https://mikeshulman.github.io/catlog/catlog.pdf

johndoe42377 6y ago
I would claim that such structures are imaginary, not structures at all, and the whole field is a sect (a socially constructed movement based on sectarian consensus which regards "knowledge" of details of abstractions, which does not make any sense outside of sectarian contexts). Let's talk the most basic algebraic laws. Yes, there is indeed no difference in adding 2 apples to 3 apples, or adding 3 of them to 2. The question is from which pile to start, and the result is the same. (Multiplication, being just repeated addition, is also obvious - there is really no difference which side of a rectangle comes first). Notice, that there is still a fundamental connection to reality. Adding C to O has exactly the same properties. There is no difference which comes first. The identity element is more tricky, because nothing of this sort existed in nature. Nature has distinct start and stop sequence, and does structural pattern matching in the literal sense. So, we would superimpose an element upon reality which lacks it, the same way as it goes with zero. Let's say, that trying to add what's can't be added (by physical properties) produces no change to the original element, and it is equivalent to addition of a zero. Generalising this noop we will get something similar to identify. 1 for multiplication, is natural , while an identify matrix is an artificial construction. Okay, this is all common sense. The important thing that there is literally nothing deeper than this shaky generalisation which we call monoid. First, because only addition and multiplication are "true monoid". Protein production by an enzyme is almost it, but no identity. There is no identities outside your head. A list is a monoid because of added '() - the empty list, which, again, does not exist anywhere. There is no such thing as an empty DNA sequence, empty molecule, etc. I could go on, but maybe you already see where it goes. Everything is imaginary and too abstract to have any applicable, meaningful context.
- myWindoonn 6y ago
  This sounds facetious. After all, the humble empty set is not physical either, and yet most set theorists will claim that it is Platonically real. More generally, mathematics is a social construction, yes. The word literally means "things we teach each other", and the defining quality of mathematical facts is that they are non-obvious but can be verified for oneself without any additional help or context. Denying the usefulness of category theory will only make theoretical physics harder. It doesn't make physics any simpler. Edit: I was going to just link you to the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, but I'll spell out the definitions explicitly instead. A formal logic is a system with some propositions and some deductive rules. Each rule takes a (family of) propositions and sends them to new propositions, changing their syntax but not their truth. Rules may be composed associatively, and for each proposition, there is a trivial identity rule which changes nothing. This is a category, right? So every formal logic has a corresponding category whose objects represent its propositions and whose arrows represent its rules.

Koshkin 6y ago

There is nothing wrong with abstract thinking. It is indeed useful. It is, in fact, one of the things that separate the higher animal species like humans from the rest.

johndoe42377 6y ago
This is the social signalling I am talking about.