I took a graduate course in category theory in 1983, long before computer scientists got hold of it. (From Gian-Carlo Rota, it happens.)
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness
I suspect that when Haskellers say "category theory" they mean something else. But what?pic.twitter.com/99bDmuIhYt
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
In one of these 15-minute sessions, I figured out what they mean by "monad," which is indeed trivial. (Rota would call that "evidence.")
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness
I'm torn between this being an obvious waste of time and a faint sense of intellectual honesty: "Well, if it ISN'T trivial, I should know."
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness
A blog post titled "Haskell 'category theory' for people who know category theory and/or PL theory" would be a public service...
8 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
But surely the easiest way to prove Haskell trivial is to prove category theory is trivial, and derive it as a corollary!
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @St_Rev
Well, yes, exactly, category theory pretty much *is* trivial, which is part of why I figure Haskell probably is.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @St_Rev
It keeps nagging at me, though, so I keep getting sucked in to wasting another 15 minutes without actually finding out.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @St_Rev
Monads do seem to be the main “category theory” thing. I think they are probably dumb as a programming language thing, but not sure.
4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
Yeah, it's completely opaque to me because I don't understand programming.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
In this case, you haven’t missed anything.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.