Linas, Tanks for taking time to answer.
I skimmed over the Stackexchange post and I found it interesting (not that anyone cares :o). I tried once a while ago to learn about Category theory from Wikipedia, but it seemed over complicated. I guess I needed examples closer to my knowledge - not mathematical abstractions, but type theory oriented - as noted on Stackexchange. Maybe I should give it another try, I'll see. Thanks again, Ivan V. uto, 2. tra 2019. u 20:05 Linas Vepstas <[email protected]> napisao je: > Hi Ivan: > > Google "category theory for computer scientists" I get this: > > > [PDF]Category Theory for Computing Science - Mathematics and Statistics > > http://www.math.mcgill.ca/triples/Barr-Wells-ctcs.pdf > > by M Barr - Cited by 1642 - Related articles > > Aug 4, 2012 - This book is a textbook in basic category theory, written > specifically .... been a major source of interest to computer scientists > because they are. > > I have not read it. I think that "cited by 1642" means its a good, > high-quality book. There are several of these kinds of books -- one that I > did skim, maybe a decade ago, gave all of its examples and homework > problems in CaML -- it was an older book, predating Haskell. > > See also this: > > https://cs.stackexchange.com/questions/3028/is-category-theory-useful-for-learning-functional-programming > > Notice that the answer with largest upvotes says "category theory is type > theory". For any complete newbies reading this, "int", "float", "char*", > "class FooBar" and "int FooBar::myMethod(int x)" are all (C/C++/Java) > examples of types. > > I'm making three additional claims, in addition to this highly-upvoted > answer: > > 1) Link-grammar connectors/link-types are types, in the sense of type > theory. (This is not really a new claim; the original link-grammar authors > made more-or-less this same claim, in 1993, in one of their original papers) > > 2) Deep-learning neural-nets perform classification by classifying into > types. (type-theoretical types) (this claim is kind-of > shallow/stupid/"obvious", and needs to be articulated to become interesting > and non-trivial.) > > 3) There is an almost-direct, one-to-one correspondence of deep-learning > neural-nets types to link-grammar connectors/link-types, if you know where > to look for them. This is the controversial claim that everyone rejects. > And perhaps I am hallucinating and completely making this up. Like 2+2=3. > I'm struggling with this myself, as the details remain unclear and > confusing. So it's OK if you don't believe this one. But this is the > claim I'm interested in. > > -- Linas > > > On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 4:40 PM Ivan V. <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Linas, you lost me at Category theory... Nevertheless, I also find the >> idea of integrating symbolic system into neural networks amusing. The proof >> I really do is a recent speculation from a paper I'm writing from time to >> time, just to gather my thoughts (maybe I got this from you at some point, >> I really don't remember now): >> >> Nevertheless, symbolic approach may support structure forms on top of >>> which artificial neural networks could operate, thus forming a synergy >>> between the two seemingly opposite philosophies in designing AI. >>> >> >> But then I develop things in symbolic direction because with this, I'm >> currently interested only in improvement of OpenCog URE engine, as far as I >> plan to offer contribution around here if the language I'm building passes >> the stages a, b, c, d, and also e, just in case. >> >> Realizing ideas take time, and life is too short to do it all, while I'm >> not a fan of bossing around... I also like to see creativity in other >> people too... >> >> sri, 27. ožu 2019. u 20:04 Linas Vepstas <[email protected]> >> napisao je: >> >>> Hi Sergei, >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 12:14 PM Sergei Kaunov <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Amused by your work, Linas, and you describe it very interesting. Where >>>> should we watch further progress on the topic? >>>> >>> >>> Thanks! Progress is hard, because several things have to happen in >>> parallel. >>> >>> -- I (or you, or anyone else) has to think hard across multiple >>> different difficult mathematical abstractions. >>> >>> -- Once I (or you, or anyone else) has some "great idea", it has to be >>> transmitted to others, either by email or by writing papers. >>> >>> -- Others can understand those "great ideas" only if they have the >>> appropriate mathematical background: in Ivan's case: hilbert-systems and >>> natural deduction and proof theory and type theory and category theory and >>> neural networks and deep learning and statistical mechanics (for example, >>> the "objective function" that neural net guys love to minimize/maximize is >>> exactly the same thing as a boltzmann distribution from statistical >>> echanics) So my personal progress on the topic is blocked by the >>> inability to communicate it to others. If you don't understand what I'm >>> talking about, its deeply frustrating for me. (And this is symmetric: >>> sometimes, I am told about great ideas, which I don't understand, because I >>> lack the background knowledge) >>> >>> -- A "great idea" is great only if it *actually works*. And, here, that >>> means (a) writing software (b) running experiments (c) analyzing data. (d) >>> describing experimental results to others. So, not only are steps a,b,c, >>> extremely time consuming, but step (d) is often mis-understood/neglected, >>> because the intended audience didn't understand why the experiment is >>> important. >>> >>> -- After you've conquered steps a,b,c,d then and only then can you do >>> step e) build an insanely great demo that will wow everyone who sees it, >>> even if they are a complete moron. For example, "deep fakes". You don't >>> need math to know that something unusual is happening there. >>> >>> The pressure I'm under, that I feel, is that I've got a collection of >>> "great ideas", I'm trying to articulate them, having trouble finding an >>> audience, struggling with steps a,b,c,d and meanwhile everyone is shouting >>> out loud "you guys are a bunch of losers because you don't have step e) you >>> suck!" and dealing with the psychological and financial fallout from that. >>> >>> I'm not unique, here -- most researchers/scientists deal with these same >>> issue. The commonly accepted solution for this is to create collaborations >>> and teams -- "division of labor" -- and tehre's chicken-and-egg problems to >>> solving that, also. >>> >>> --linas >>> >>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "opencog" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>> an email to [email protected]. >>>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/opencog. >>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/opencog/0b258284-cb0c-45ae-8d34-9f74d7ee00f9%40googlegroups.com >>>> . >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> cassette tapes - analog TV - film cameras - you >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "opencog" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to [email protected]. >>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/opencog. >>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/opencog/CAHrUA355QGo1zA8oCUZ3guEwMFymqJ7-PA5ydTJdMx2Sf%2B-ypQ%40mail.gmail.com >>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/opencog/CAHrUA355QGo1zA8oCUZ3guEwMFymqJ7-PA5ydTJdMx2Sf%2B-ypQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>> . >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "opencog" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/opencog. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/opencog/CAB5%3Dj6Xt0ze729QzdMVFyU4Q%2BYPB7hib_7n%3D4iNguzmJ2Em2SA%40mail.gmail.com >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/opencog/CAB5%3Dj6Xt0ze729QzdMVFyU4Q%2BYPB7hib_7n%3D4iNguzmJ2Em2SA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > > -- > cassette tapes - analog TV - film cameras - you > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "opencog" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/opencog. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/opencog/CAHrUA36XhRzY0Wez4n0VhYSw_NYfZMVY3fU-eOPe2g7h-%2B2ZAQ%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/opencog/CAHrUA36XhRzY0Wez4n0VhYSw_NYfZMVY3fU-eOPe2g7h-%2B2ZAQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "opencog" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/opencog. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/opencog/CAB5%3Dj6UqyfGuEddxfB-46bK9uO-uDYg2tuercyxhgZzq%3D%2B3efA%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
