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.
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
ssage]
> From: Russell Standish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity
Coffee Group
> Date: 8/15/2008 10:09:06 PM
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Rosen, functional entailments
>
> Your question on what F(f,g) is: I think it is ordin
to, but
different than functions.
Ken
_
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Nicholas Thompson
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 12:03 AM
To: friam
Subject: [FRIAM] Rosen, functional entailments
Roseneers,
If anybody is still willing to help out in
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
Roseneers,
If anybody is still willing to help out in understanding chapter five, of LIFE
ITSELF I have posted a queston at
http://www.sfcomplex.org/mw/index.php?title=Talk:RosenNoodles#More_struggles_with_chapter_five
Let me know, if you cant get in.
One of you wrote me a kindly note asking
