4 ms·
I think you’re conflating criticism of Applied Category Theory™ with criticism of category theory. I honestly feel bad for some of the students who got swept u
by catgary 3y ago
I think you’re conflating criticism of Applied Category Theory™ with criticism of category theory.
I honestly feel bad for some of the students who got swept up into it - I’m not convinced they come out with the hard programming skills of someone working in PL semantics or the flexibility to work in other fields of mathematics that an algebraic topology- or geometry-focused category theory student might have.
- consilient 3y agoMaybe so. I'm not sure what the TM means, at any rate. But to my mind there's a clear distinction between the sort of stuff John Baez does, which could reasonably be called "applied", and the sort of stuff Jacob Lurie does, which absolutely is not. And there's good and valuable work in both clusters.
- catgary 3y agoMaybe! I just think I was exactly the sort of industrial scientist who would be the market for something like CatLab.jl, or a lot of papers that intersected with my new-found industrial domain, and I just never found anything compelling. I feel like I wasted a fair bit of time trying to get anything out of it, so I’ve been left pretty skeptical of anything coming of California or Oxford. The lenses stuff is quite good and I think it would have been well-published/cited in PL theory even without the ACT branding.