Nigredo

4 ms·

1.
by Nigredo 8y ago
I worked on this with Peter Gardenfors in my PhD thesis. If someone is interested in a mathematical model of conceptual spaces which is not machine-learning oriented, you can check this out: https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.0
2.
by Nigredo 8y ago
Hey everyone, we published a blog post today where we try to answer to some questions and remarks that popped out in this thread. Check it out! https://blog.statebox.org/visual-programming-what-went-wrong...
3.
by Nigredo 8y ago
Well, I think it's not really possible to divide a concept from the way it is realized. Many implementations of visual languages were badly done, for sure. This doesn't mean we can go from "this implementation of a visual lan
4.
by Nigredo 8y ago
True. We implement scalability by being able to glue nets together. This allows for a modular design where you can put together many sub-nets doing different things. This is again a purely formal process: It is graphical, yes, but what you
5.
by Nigredo 8y ago
Luckily we do. Our diagrams are sound and complete for free symmetric monoidal categories, meaning that every diagram can be converted to a morphism in a category. :)
6.
by Nigredo 8y ago
This is exactly why we use petri nets and then we map them to a semantics. Drafting a net represents the "diagram part". You draw what your code is supposed to do as you would do on a whiteboard. But this time you have a lot of fo
7.
by Nigredo 8y ago
What you say is true. Text is way more expressive, but sometimes it is difficult to spot the overall code structure just by using text. What Statebox does is this: It implements Petri nets as categories and maps them functorially to a &quot
8.
by Nigredo 8y ago
> Visual programming tools attempt to map logic to a (usually) 2D domain where there is no natural or intuitive general mapping. The representation has both too many degrees of freedom (arbitrary positions of nodes in 2D space that are n