So far I only hear issues about mapping theoretical things to theoretical things, math to math, theory to theory. Last I knew the only mapping between physical and theoretical things had to do with ranges of uncertainty in measures of the physical things, like weight and height guessing, and that critical step of abstracting a measure from physical things as the basis of correspondence, to give math something to correlate, was completely necessary. Have you guys dispensed with that somehow?
Phil > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Marcus G. Daniels > Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2008 11:51 AM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Rosen, and mapping > > One contribution from category theory for dealing with stateful systems > (like organisms) is the Monad. > Monads provide a way to compose together computations into larger ones > such that an order of execution can be enforced *and* such that the > state doesn't need to be passed around from amongst the functions. > Without a design pattern like this, it isn't possible to talk about the > interactions of a complex set of objects and their internal changes > without allowing side-effects (which will mean the functions aren't > really functions in the mathematical sense), or exposing irrelevant and > often complex internal state in the equation parameters. > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
