[Haskell-cafe] Category Theory woes
Nick Rudnick
joerg.rudnick at t-online.de
Thu Feb 18 17:02:48 EST 2010
Hans Aberg wrote:
> On 18 Feb 2010, at 19:19, Nick Rudnick wrote:
>
>> agreed, but, in my eyes, you directly point to the problem:
>>
>> * doesn't this just delegate the problem to the topic of limit
>> operations, i.e., in how far is the term «closed» here more perspicuous?
>>
>> * that's (for a very simple concept) the way that maths prescribes:
>> + historical background: «I take "closed" as coming from being closed
>> under limit operations - the origin from analysis.»
>> + definition backtracking: «A closure operation c is defined by the
>> property c(c(x)) = c(x). If one takes c(X) = the set of limit points
>> of X, then it is the smallest closed set under this operation. The
>> closed sets X are those that satisfy c(X) = X. Naming the complements
>> of the closed sets open might have been introduced as an opposite of
>> closed.»
>>
>> 418 bytes in my file system... how many in my brain...? Is it
>> efficient, inevitable?
>
> Yes, it is efficient conceptually. The idea of closed sets let to
> topology, and in combination with abstractions of differential
> geometry led to cohomology theory which needed category theory solving
> problems in number theory, used in a computer language called Haskell
> using a feature called Currying, named after a logician and
> mathematician, though only one person.
It is SUCCESSFUL, NO MATTER... :-)
But I spoke about efficiency, in the Pareto sense
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency)... Can we say that the
way in which things are done now cannot be improved??
Hans, you were the most specific response to my actual intention --
could I clear up the reference thing for you?
All the best,
Nick
>
> Hans
>
>
>
More information about the Haskell-Cafe
mailing list