5 ms·

No, it isn't. It's a really nice framework though, but there's plenty (pleeeeenty!) of things that lie beyond its scope. Idealizing CT and its applications on

No, it isn't. It's a really nice framework though, but there's plenty (pleeeeenty!) of things that lie beyond its scope. Idealizing CT and its applications only does more harm than good to the field. Edit: Sure, I'll be glad to talk about it. Have plenty of experience doing (also, avoiding doing) things w/ CT. Just drop me an email (see profile), you're always welcome.

weatherlight 6y ago
Could you provide some examples where that this was the case?
meowkit 6y ago
You forgot the part where you explain <why>/point out/link to examples of things that lie beyond its scope.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
random3 6y ago
It almost feels like your goal is to collect emails :). You made me curious. Please share your insights
- moralestapia 6y ago
  >It almost feels like your goal is to collect emails Now that's a new one, keep going pal :)
nerdponx 6y ago
Isn't there supposed to be a nice three-way equivalence between certain systems of logic, category theory, and lambda calculus? Presumably something that lies beyond the scope of CT also lies beyond the scope of those other systems.
- moralestapia 6y ago
  I can see ways to represent lambda calculus constructs using CT and viceversa. I guess that 'systems of logic' includes lambda calculus, or systems with equivalent semantics; so yeah, I can believe there's a connection at some level. The (one?) problem with CT is that it, by definition, puts too much importance on the relation between things via composition, which is a powerful paradigm in itself, but also quite restrictive. 'Structure' is not usually encoded like that in a natural way. CT is just part of a larger framework that is currently being unveiled (!!!); but, to be quite frank, people who focus mostly on CT seem to be missing the forest for the trees.
  - Koshkin 6y ago
    Not to disagree, I just would make a slight correction: in this case it is more like people seem to be missing the trees for the forest.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- benrbray 6y ago
  See e.g. Baez & Stay 2009, "Physics, Topology, Logic, and Computation: A Rosetta Stone". [1] [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/0903.0340 https://arxiv.org/abs/0903.0340

weatherlight 6y ago

Could you provide some examples where that this was the case?

meowkit 6y ago

You forgot the part where you explain <why>/point out/link to examples of things that lie beyond its scope.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

random3 6y ago

It almost feels like your goal is to collect emails :). You made me curious. Please share your insights

moralestapia 6y ago
>It almost feels like your goal is to collect emails Now that's a new one, keep going pal :)

nerdponx 6y ago

Isn't there supposed to be a nice three-way equivalence between certain systems of logic, category theory, and lambda calculus? Presumably something that lies beyond the scope of CT also lies beyond the scope of those other systems.

moralestapia 6y ago
I can see ways to represent lambda calculus constructs using CT and viceversa. I guess that 'systems of logic' includes lambda calculus, or systems with equivalent semantics; so yeah, I can believe there's a connection at some level. The (one?) problem with CT is that it, by definition, puts too much importance on the relation between things via composition, which is a powerful paradigm in itself, but also quite restrictive. 'Structure' is not usually encoded like that in a natural way. CT is just part of a larger framework that is currently being unveiled (!!!); but, to be quite frank, people who focus mostly on CT seem to be missing the forest for the trees.
- Koshkin 6y ago
  Not to disagree, I just would make a slight correction: in this case it is more like people seem to be missing the trees for the forest.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
benrbray 6y ago
See e.g. Baez & Stay 2009, "Physics, Topology, Logic, and Computation: A Rosetta Stone". [1] [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/0903.0340 https://arxiv.org/abs/0903.0340