Agreed. Nobody convinced me that Rosen was ever really doing category theory anyhow. If all you need is the category Set, why mobilize algebraic topology? Leave the hyper-dimensional warp drive in the garage.
Russell Standish wrote: > The standard language of maps (aka functions) over sets will give you > want you want. Category theory is not needed. > > On Sat, Aug 09, 2008 at 08:58:02PM -0600, Nicholas Thompson wrote: > >> Roseners, and anybody else vaguely interested in category theory. >> >> Rosen seems to be interested in situations in which A maps to B but not all >> the values in B can be generated by the mapping. >> >> this is a lot like the Intension and the Extension of an utterance. I say >> with assurance that Mrs. Vanderbilt wished to sail on the Titanic. In this >> case, Mrs Vanderbilt's "wanting" is a function (mathematical sense) that >> maps from her wants to a subset of the properties of the Titanic. All the >> properties of the Titanic constitute (in philosophic lingo ) it's extension. >> The subset, the "image" of Mrs Vanderbilt's wanting , constitutes the >> intension of her utterance, "I want to sail on the Titanic." Among the >> titanic's attributes, but outside that image, is the property "hit an >> iceberg in the North Atlantic and sank." >> >> I guess the question is whether there is a less tortured mathematics than >> category theory that would allow one to talk about these things. >> >> N >> >> >> >> >> >> Nicholas S. Thompson >> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, >> Clark University ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >> > > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
