> On Sep 12, 5:06 am, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> <b>Given two categories C and D a functor F from C to D can be thought
>>> of as an *analogy* between C and D, because F has to map objects of C
>>> to objects of D and arrows of C to arrows of D in such a way that the
>>> compositional structure of the two categories is preserved.</b>
>> No meaning there either.
>> Brent
> Given that its been published on wikipedia, I'd say ya need to brush
> up on ya category theory.  Analogies and category theory are very
> interesting indeed, as a possible means to extend Bayesianism.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy

"Analogy is both the cognitive process of transferring information from a 
particular subject (the analogue or source) to another particular subject (the 
target), and a linguistic expression corresponding to such a process."

Notice that the subject must already have information, i.e. meaning, and 
is a way of transferring it.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_theory

"In mathematics, category theory deals in an *abstract* way with mathematical 
structures and relationships between them: it abstracts from sets and functions 
to objects and morphisms."

No meaning there.

It's not that I disagree that Bayesian inference is limited, it's just that I 
don't see how any formalism, logic, set theory, category theory, arithmetic... 
can provide it's own meaning.  To say that some symbolic string has meaning is 
just to say it can provoke action in some context.

Brent Meeker

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to