t; 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
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Carl Tollander
> Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2008 10:14 AM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Rosen, and mapping
>
> In that same vein I also recommend at least the first few
> pages of this tal
s, 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@redfish.com
> *Subject:* [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 t
nday, August 10, 2008 7:24 AM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Rosen, and mapping
>
> I agree with Russell and Carl, but a couple of mathematical
> examples might help.
>
> Consider the mapping (i.e. arrow) from a pair of facto
I agree with Russell and Carl, but a couple of mathematical examples
might help.
Consider the mapping (i.e. arrow) from a pair of factors to their
product. There is not a unique reverse mapping from the product to
the factors. Also, if the factors are positive, consider the mapping
from
to
arrange a correspondence between the two?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Nicholas Thompson
Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2008 10:58 PM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: [FRIAM] Rosen, and mapping
Roseners, and anybody else vaguely interested in category theory
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
@redfish.com
Subject: [FRIAM] Rosen, and mapping
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
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
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.
11 matches
Mail list logo
