4 ms·

I don't understand what bartoszmilewski talked about, so his book seems useless to me. But at work i use category theory for all of my domain model.

iman453 2y ago
Would you be willing to share more about your domain modeling and how category theory helped?
- Krei-se 2y ago
  He can abstract more models in general frameworks (This is true for every job). He just is hesitant taking the leap to go all Camus and derive money from absurdism ;)
Krei-se 2y ago
Oh, i can solve this: You will understand his work better once you step out of the narrow category of your work domain model.
- revskill 2y ago
  He uses math term to explain the math. No way i will use that method to understand the subject.
  - Krei-se 2y ago
    Yeah, but that's kinda the point i made in my original post: You can work towards the general math terms while translating your domain model into higher abstractions, but this will have consequences on your personal life. You can see this clearly in the ct-illustrated author that interweaves his struggle while learning the matter and wrote a journal about both his life and the topic. As Milewski teaches the subject, he is in a position to match both personal life, work and the topic into one book, so this is the goal, but it will entail you leaving the narrow perspective of your work. He can talk from math to math, but you have to - similar to the author of ct-illustrated - find your own way from translating your specific model into a more general one. If you want a handle to start: Think of a line that extends into + and - infinity: It will create a circle. Even though a circle is a 2 dimensional object, it's made of infinetly many distinct 1-dimensional lines. The same is true for your work: Even though it is made out of a distinct countable number of interwoven objects in your domain, this structure is part of a bigger abstraction. Doing more work, like drawing more distinct new objects will not take you onto the more general abstraction, but thinking about what all your domain models have in common. Try to work less, be lazy and the underlying mathematical models will appear in a language you already speak. In your case: Abstraction your work domain model into multiple clients (1 employer --> multiple employers in a similar line of work) will a) lead into your termination b) show how you can abstract your work away from 1 source of income and purpose into multiple ones. Good luck!
    - Koshkin 2y ago
      A circle is a 1-dimensional manifold (which, indeed, could be embedded in a space that has more dimensions). This follows exactly from your own (correct) image of it as being created from (i.e. being locally homeomorphic to) straight lines. But the entire thing ("the territory") always turns out to be more than the set of parts it is "built from," and if you ignore this, not only you are bound to lose the forest for the trees, your understanding of the whole may end up being completely wrong.
      - Krei-se 2y ago
        Would you like to elaborate more on the territory part? As far as i understood you talk about emergence of properties beyond the sum of the elements but might be mistaken. Im fine with links to libgen.is or lengthy pdfs if necessary. I'm currently working on trees for a nested controller approach and constructing / deconstructing differing branches. So even though i don't feel stuck right now i'm always willing to take hints for taking another path.
        Koshkin 2y ago
        Sorry, the word "territory" was merely an (unsuccessful) attempt at a pun on the notion of "atlas" used in the theory of manifolds. (In your example, the straight line segments are the "pages" in such atlas, and the circle - the manifold - is the "territory.") It would seem to me that the properties of the circle are not emergent properties of a bunch of line segments; rather, the circle is something else entirely, whose shape is forced upon it by its own nature. Another example that comes to mind is the so-called "fiber bundles," whose own topology in general can be much more complex than that of a "trivial bundle" (simply the product of two spaces - the "base" and the "fiber"), although locally they all do look "trivial." None of this, I am afraid, has much to do with what you said you are working on. In the realm of software development, the only emerging properties (or non-trivial topologies) are bugs.
        Krei-se 2y ago
        Nah, that's totally fine, i for my part tried to make a joke about tree structure in a frontend/backend router. As there are multiple branches (subtrees) derived from different (single linked list) paths it's not a problem to go back to a node and diverge, it does not invalidate the tree. Im sure a lot of the joke in each part is lost in niche knowledge and translation. As for manifolds, i am drawn to stuff like a hendecachoron and we have a new fountain in Chemnitz now called "Manifold" which is made from circles and i love it! Also the local architect of the town hall has the surname "Möbius". So i'll take the hint to learn a bit more about topology!
  - dkarl 2y ago
    You might be looking for a kind of understanding that doesn't exist in math. John von Neumann said, "In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them." So even one of the greatest mathematicians of all time didn't feel like he "understood" concepts that he was adept at applying to both abstract and real-world problems. This is why there are monad tutorials that use dozens of different analogies for monads, and nobody feels like they understand anything better after reading them. But if you use monads enough, eventually you get used to how they work and how to accomplish things with them. And then you stop caring if you "understand" them.
    - Krei-se 2y ago
      Speak for yourself, monads are easily understood from the philosophical pov: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monad_(philosophy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monad_(philosophy) which they are derived from in category theory, so maybe go that way if you still need foundation for the concept of the concept that bore all concepts?
      - School-Cotton 2y ago
        As far as I can tell this is totally unrelated to the concept of monad in mathematics or programming.
      - ahoka 2y ago
        How does it make it easy? That’s like saying to understand object oriented programming one just needs to study Plat’s theory of forms.
        Krei-se 2y ago
        Its the point where you start from in CT. Having the problem of not being able to talk about a concept is the absurd function and part of Chapter 1 (!!) in books about category theory. So instead of circling around this topic, welcome, this means you are inside the problem domain of category theory ;)
        Koshkin 2y ago

iman453 2y ago

Would you be willing to share more about your domain modeling and how category theory helped?

Krei-se 2y ago
He can abstract more models in general frameworks (This is true for every job). He just is hesitant taking the leap to go all Camus and derive money from absurdism ;)

Krei-se 2y ago

Oh, i can solve this: You will understand his work better once you step out of the narrow category of your work domain model.

revskill 2y ago
He uses math term to explain the math. No way i will use that method to understand the subject.
- Krei-se 2y ago
  Yeah, but that's kinda the point i made in my original post: You can work towards the general math terms while translating your domain model into higher abstractions, but this will have consequences on your personal life. You can see this clearly in the ct-illustrated author that interweaves his struggle while learning the matter and wrote a journal about both his life and the topic. As Milewski teaches the subject, he is in a position to match both personal life, work and the topic into one book, so this is the goal, but it will entail you leaving the narrow perspective of your work. He can talk from math to math, but you have to - similar to the author of ct-illustrated - find your own way from translating your specific model into a more general one. If you want a handle to start: Think of a line that extends into + and - infinity: It will create a circle. Even though a circle is a 2 dimensional object, it's made of infinetly many distinct 1-dimensional lines. The same is true for your work: Even though it is made out of a distinct countable number of interwoven objects in your domain, this structure is part of a bigger abstraction. Doing more work, like drawing more distinct new objects will not take you onto the more general abstraction, but thinking about what all your domain models have in common. Try to work less, be lazy and the underlying mathematical models will appear in a language you already speak. In your case: Abstraction your work domain model into multiple clients (1 employer --> multiple employers in a similar line of work) will a) lead into your termination b) show how you can abstract your work away from 1 source of income and purpose into multiple ones. Good luck!
  - Koshkin 2y ago
    A circle is a 1-dimensional manifold (which, indeed, could be embedded in a space that has more dimensions). This follows exactly from your own (correct) image of it as being created from (i.e. being locally homeomorphic to) straight lines. But the entire thing ("the territory") always turns out to be more than the set of parts it is "built from," and if you ignore this, not only you are bound to lose the forest for the trees, your understanding of the whole may end up being completely wrong.
    - Krei-se 2y ago
      Would you like to elaborate more on the territory part? As far as i understood you talk about emergence of properties beyond the sum of the elements but might be mistaken. Im fine with links to libgen.is or lengthy pdfs if necessary. I'm currently working on trees for a nested controller approach and constructing / deconstructing differing branches. So even though i don't feel stuck right now i'm always willing to take hints for taking another path.
      - Koshkin 2y ago
        Sorry, the word "territory" was merely an (unsuccessful) attempt at a pun on the notion of "atlas" used in the theory of manifolds. (In your example, the straight line segments are the "pages" in such atlas, and the circle - the manifold - is the "territory.") It would seem to me that the properties of the circle are not emergent properties of a bunch of line segments; rather, the circle is something else entirely, whose shape is forced upon it by its own nature. Another example that comes to mind is the so-called "fiber bundles," whose own topology in general can be much more complex than that of a "trivial bundle" (simply the product of two spaces - the "base" and the "fiber"), although locally they all do look "trivial." None of this, I am afraid, has much to do with what you said you are working on. In the realm of software development, the only emerging properties (or non-trivial topologies) are bugs.
        Krei-se 2y ago
        Nah, that's totally fine, i for my part tried to make a joke about tree structure in a frontend/backend router. As there are multiple branches (subtrees) derived from different (single linked list) paths it's not a problem to go back to a node and diverge, it does not invalidate the tree. Im sure a lot of the joke in each part is lost in niche knowledge and translation. As for manifolds, i am drawn to stuff like a hendecachoron and we have a new fountain in Chemnitz now called "Manifold" which is made from circles and i love it! Also the local architect of the town hall has the surname "Möbius". So i'll take the hint to learn a bit more about topology!
- dkarl 2y ago
  You might be looking for a kind of understanding that doesn't exist in math. John von Neumann said, "In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them." So even one of the greatest mathematicians of all time didn't feel like he "understood" concepts that he was adept at applying to both abstract and real-world problems. This is why there are monad tutorials that use dozens of different analogies for monads, and nobody feels like they understand anything better after reading them. But if you use monads enough, eventually you get used to how they work and how to accomplish things with them. And then you stop caring if you "understand" them.
  - Krei-se 2y ago
    Speak for yourself, monads are easily understood from the philosophical pov: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monad_(philosophy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monad_(philosophy) which they are derived from in category theory, so maybe go that way if you still need foundation for the concept of the concept that bore all concepts?
    - School-Cotton 2y ago
      As far as I can tell this is totally unrelated to the concept of monad in mathematics or programming.
    - ahoka 2y ago
      How does it make it easy? That’s like saying to understand object oriented programming one just needs to study Plat’s theory of forms.
      - Krei-se 2y ago
        Its the point where you start from in CT. Having the problem of not being able to talk about a concept is the absurd function and part of Chapter 1 (!!) in books about category theory. So instead of circling around this topic, welcome, this means you are inside the problem domain of category theory ;)
      - Koshkin 2y ago