Your question on what F(f,g) is: I think it is ordinary function
composition, usually denoted fog (where the o is actually a small
circle, not the letter "o"). ie
(fog)(x) = f(g(x)).
I'm not entirely sure why the use of "inner" and "outer" entailment
refers to this, though. Inner and outer normal
Nick,
The capital F represents the functor (functional object) in Category Theory.
The small f is a function. A functor serves as a relationship operation
between categories. I think it might help if you looked at several examples
of functors to see 1) what they do, and 2) how they are related t
Thanks, Russell.
Is your comment differ with Ken's or is it Ken's in another language.
For a former english major, the LANGUAGE is everything.
Nick
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
Clark University ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> [Original Message]
> From: Ru
All,
For those wishing a Gentle Introduction to what is admittedly the most
abstract topic in maths - Category Theory.
http://wwwhome.cs.utwente.nl/~fokkinga/mmf92b.html
It doesn't rush into proofs and spends some time describing terms.
=
Kenneth A. Lloyd
CEO an
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 8:57 AM, Nicholas Thompson <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks, Russell.
>
> Is your comment differ with Ken's or is it Ken's in another language.
>
> For a former english major, the LANGUAGE is everything.
>
>
The operation of functional composition, taking *f: A -> B* a
Simon says let's do it again.
Summer's fading, we're losing our interns to Stanford & Brown, and we
are submitting our first full RFP. Seems like reason to gather and
confab.
7:00 tonight, Friday, August 15 at the complex.
-d-
FR
Roger Critchlow wrote:
> No functors were deployed in the construction of these paragraphs.
I agree that the "F" isn't a functor. But, it is at the same level of
discourse as functors. It's part of the definition of a category, an
axiom, which means it comes from _outside_ the formalism. I.e.
Glen,
..clip
> You can stay in the system. Then there's only symbols. Whoever said
> that
> it was allowed to go outside the symbols?
>
> And if you analyze one formal system on a higher level formal system,
> then, there again, only symbols.
>
> Everything else is philosophy (this is barebones
Phil Henshaw wrote:
> Günther Greindl wrote:
>>
>> You can stay in the system. Then there's only symbols. Whoever said
>> that it was allowed to go outside the symbols?
>>
>> And if you analyze one formal system on a higher level formal
>> system, then, there again, only symbols.
>>
>> Everythi
