3 ms·
I hate this particular mix of prose and formalism. Too complicated to be pop-sci, too informal to be, well, formal. I got to this part: > We know that two orde
by anal_reactor 1y ago
I hate this particular mix of prose and formalism. Too complicated to be pop-sci, too informal to be, well, formal. I got to this part:
> We know that two orders are isomorphic if there are two functors, such that going from one to the other and back again leads you to the same object.
And I have no clue what is a functor, nor order. "Functor" wasn't defined, and "order" is defined as "thin category", which in turn remains undefined.
Seems to me like in order to understand this text you already need to understand category theory. If that's the case, then why would you be reading it?
- gs17 1y agoIt's the newest chapter of a book, the previous one defines functors.
- mjh2539 1y agoI agree. There was (and still is) a trend in technical writing that began in the 2010s to be overly pedestrian and informal (and in many cases explicitly vulgar). The same impulse or geist resulted in many people naming their library or product a cute or contrived or irrelevant word. Get off my lawn! And start giving things long descriptive names that are aliased to acronyms again! db2, netcat, socat, emacs (editing macros), wget...etc.
- mrkeen 1y ago> And I have no clue what is a functor, nor order. If you press the Prev button at the top of the page it takes you back to Functors. Twice more and it will take you back to Orders.
- anal_reactor 1y agoThen why link to the middle of the whole thing, instead of the beginning?