[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology and Category Theory

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Jack Park <jack.park@xxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 10:49:13 -0800
Message-id: <49834BA9.5050507@xxxxxxx>
One take on category theory contrasted with set theory that I read 
somewhere was that set theory lets you enumerate members, while category 
theory lets you talk about the social lives of those members. Don't 
recall where I read that.    (01)

Jack    (02)

Mitch Harris wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Len Yabloko <lenya@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> my impression of CT remains to be as of an attempt to make abstract 
>reasoning in general (not only mathematical form of it) more precise.
> If anything, the executive summaries of logic and category theory are:
> logic is the study of reasoning.
> category theory is the study of transformations.
> Sure a gross oversimplification, but I think in the appropriate
> direction for each, and it allows meaningful distinction and
> comparison. It might be difficult to extract the above from wikipedia
> or other easy online sources, but still it's a start.
>> I believe this objective to be a paramount to making it useful beyond 
>calculation and in the real of reasoning. If I am wrong and CT is not 
>attempting to do that, then some other theory should. And my observation is 
>that neither classical Logic nor Ontology as discipline are adequate to this 
>goal if they can't "nail down' the identity.
> There's all sorts of discussion within the ontology community about
> identity. Whether the unique name assumption (UNA) holds, inferring
> subsumption of one concept by another.
>> Again, I not talking about absolute and universal identity (I don't know 
>what it is), but about sufficient level of identification required for 
>business transactions.
> If you're concerned that a particular formalism might be inappropriate
> for business transactions, then CT is definitely it. Even
> well-educated and, separately, intelligent people have difficulties
> with even boolean logic.
>>> No mathematical theory, category theory or anything else, is magic.
>>> You have to decide which aspects of the world to represent in the
>>> mathematics:  your size and weight or your DNA and fingerprints.
>> I don't see a big difference between what mathematicians and magicians do - 
>it is all matter of talent and imagination.
> There's what magicians do and then there's magic. There's no magic.
>     (03)

Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (04)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>