Timeline for Learning to Think Categorically
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 11, 2009 at 22:50 | comment | added | Mikael Vejdemo-Johansson | @Harry Okay. There's a HUGE difference between the statement I just disagree with everything that you said and I don't think one should start learning category theory by learning category theory - and you came off much more hostile originally than this eventual synthesis. I agree insofar that I actually don't recommend above learning abstract category theory without first thinking about why, and from what perspective. Once you've decided you want to learn, though, I think it's a nice field to be tinkering in. And if this opinions is offensive to you, there's nothing left for me to do. | |
| Dec 11, 2009 at 20:22 | comment | added | Harry Gindi | I took more issue with the second sentence, since I agree more with Harrison's statement that rushing into abstract category theory can actually be detrimental to your understanding of category theory. | |
| Dec 11, 2009 at 18:04 | comment | added | Mikael Vejdemo-Johansson | @Harry Now that you've explained your reaction, I'm even more intrigued. You say you disagree with everything I said in the post - let me grab one thing I did say: First, WHY do you want to learn categories? Would you care to tell me what in this question - that I thought was the main point I made - you do disagree with? | |
| Dec 11, 2009 at 17:53 | comment | added | Dan Piponi | Just about every section of CWM (apart from maybe the chapter on Abelian categories) can be illuminated by direct applications to CS. But hey, maybe some people don't consider CWM to be real category theory either. | |
| Dec 11, 2009 at 17:33 | comment | added | Mike Shulman | Also, I have no idea what you mean by distinguishing "real" CT from "CT for CS." Category theory lives by its applications to the rest of mathematics, including computer science as one of those. | |
| Dec 11, 2009 at 17:32 | comment | added | Mike Shulman | Having left out some of the main perspectives on category theory is not a reason to "disagree with everything." He even said explicitly "there are more reasons to learn CT - but these are the ones I've felt myself." You can't expect him to know how to learn CT from perspectives other than his own. I also think it's ridiculous to suppose that learning CT could be "detrimental"--at worst you'll discover that you don't like it and don't want to use it. | |
| Dec 11, 2009 at 9:26 | comment | added | Harry Gindi | It's community wiki, so don't take it personally. I just disagree with everything that you said in the post, but i'm expressing my opinion here instead of downrating you for incorrectness. The problem here is that you left out the main perspectives on category theory, which are algebraic and topological (depends on what part of category theory you're studying). You also suggested books that I don't like. Also, learning category theory could certainly be detrimental, which is something that you absolutely failed to consider in your post. | |
| Dec 11, 2009 at 9:15 | comment | added | Mikael Vejdemo-Johansson | Are you dismissing the entire answer based on my including a logic/typetheory perspective? I disagree with your statement - but am also intrigued by the dismissal; was the rest of my answer that worthless? | |
| Dec 11, 2009 at 9:11 | comment | added | Harry Gindi | The difference between real category theory and category theory for computer science is way too vast for this answer to make any sense. | |
| Dec 11, 2009 at 9:07 | history | answered | Mikael Vejdemo-Johansson | CC BY-SA 2.5 |