spekcular

72 ms·

1. 721.▲
   by spekcular 6y ago

   They don't do it for good reason: set theory is basically a strictly better foundation for mathematics, and you have to ape all the set theoretic constructions when doing various things anyway (e.g. constructing the real numbers), so i
2. 722.▲
   by spekcular 6y ago

   None of those results would be impossible to prove without category theory, and all are easily translatable to non-category theoretic language. The use of categories doesn't provide any substantive input, it's just a useful shorth
3. 723.▲
   by spekcular 6y ago

   You have basically the right idea, despite what some category theory boosters on this site will say. It's a very useful language for algebraic topology, algebraic geometry, and related fields, to the point where working in those subjec
4. 724.▲
   by spekcular 7y ago

   > You can more easily generalize this solution to other arithmetic sequences. The closed form as sums of exponents also easily generalizes. You can find the roots of an associated polynomial, and the those roots are the numbers you take
5. 725.▲
   by spekcular 7y ago

   [deleted]
6. 726.▲
   by spekcular 7y ago

   How would you show a novice how it's done today? I've always wanted to learn about compilers, but something tells me the dragon book is no longer the go-to source.