Dear Saul,
> Your questions have definite answers in category theory and
> since Aldor is *almost* doing category theory, it's tempting to think
> that the categorical answers to your questions are really what should
> naturally fit into the language. I wrote up something trying this out
> for the 2001 workshop
>
> http://atlas.bu.edu/~youssef/papers/math/aldor/aldor.pdf
>
> I still think that this is a good way to look for flaws in the
> language - implement category theory and see what goes wrong.
I quite like what you wrote. But I somehow fear that the compiler does
not accept your code. Could you provide the compilable sources of this
paper?
Furthermore, you do quite a lot of high-level constructions. To me it
seems that they are OK to do category theory, but have you any comment
how these constructions could be used to reduce the amount of
programming work, i.e. code reuse?
Ralf
PS:
Mistakes...
Page 5:
Id(Obj:Category):Category == with
id: (A:Obj) -> (A->A)
default
id(A: Obj):(A->A) == (a:A):A +-> a --rhx: I changed this line.
Page 10:
homList(A:Categorify P,B:Categorify P):SingleInteger == add
should probably read
homList(A:Categorify P,B:Categorify P):List(A->B) ==
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
_______________________________________________
open-axiom-devel mailing list
open-axiom-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/open-axiom-devel
