Agreed. Nobody convinced me that Rosen was ever really doing category
theory anyhow. If all you need is the category Set, why mobilize
algebraic topology? Leave the hyper-dimensional warp drive in the garage.
Russell Standish wrote:
> The standard language of maps (aka functions) over sets
Nick,
See: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/rosetta.pdf
It relates category theory with mathematical topology, physics, logic and
programming.
Ken
_
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Nicholas Thompson
Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2008 8:58 PM
To: friam@redf
The standard language of maps (aka functions) over sets will give you
want you want. Category theory is not needed.
On Sat, Aug 09, 2008 at 08:58:02PM -0600, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
> Roseners, and anybody else vaguely interested in category theory.
>
> Rosen seems to be interested in situatio
I am not so sanguine about what I think of as word collage. I know it is
old fashioned, but I am REALLY (now I _am_shouting) committed to the notion
that the test of communication is how well one has been understood, not
whether one has used the words that make one proud.
Nick
Nicholas S. Th
Roseners, and anybody else vaguely interested in category theory.
Rosen seems to be interested in situations in which A maps to B but not all the
values in B can be generated by the mapping.
this is a lot like the Intension and the Extension of an utterance. I say with
assurance that Mrs.
Interesting observation. That's rather common in how conversations and
languages evolve I think, reusing pieces snatched from old ones, without the
whole. In culture the 'compost' is very nutritious. Natural systems,
biology and economies often find new uses for the compost of prior
constructs l
