On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 9:14 PM, wren ng thornton wrote:
> On 6/23/11 4:30 PM, Alexander Solla wrote:
> > Please read "Fast and Loose Reasoning is Morally Correct".
> >
> http://www.comlab.ox.ac.uk/people/jeremy.gibbons/publications/fast+loose.pdf
> >
> > As I have told you before, it is perfectl
On 6/23/11 4:30 PM, Alexander Solla wrote:
> Please read "Fast and Loose Reasoning is Morally Correct".
> http://www.comlab.ox.ac.uk/people/jeremy.gibbons/publications/fast+loose.pdf
>
> As I have told you before, it is perfectly appropriate to ignore
> bottom-the-type and bottoms-the-inexpressible
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 10:15 PM, wren ng thornton wrote:
> On 6/23/11 1:39 AM, Arnaud Bailly wrote:
> > Of course, we can always say that each
> > system is a language of its own (rather than *has* a language...) which
> is
> > what Eric Evans coined with its "Ubiquitous language" term. But I fin
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 1:15 PM, wren ng thornton wrote:
>
>
> To put a different spin on it, in the dual case we can show that Haskell's
> (,) is not a categorical product. There's a good deal of historical debate
> about why it works the way it does, but if we're looking to make a better
> syst
On 11-06-22 12:30 AM, Arnaud Bailly wrote:
Are there works/thesis/books/articles/blogs that try to use Cat.
theory explicitly as a tool/language for designing software (not as an
underlying formalisation or semantics)? Is the question even
meaningful?
A lot of Doug Smith's works. In short, an o
On 6/23/11 1:39 AM, Arnaud Bailly wrote:
> Of course, we can always say that each
> system is a language of its own (rather than *has* a language...) which is
> what Eric Evans coined with its "Ubiquitous language" term. But I find it
> difficult to connect that particular dots.
That's certainly m
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Gregg Reynolds wrote:
Well, you're way ahead of me. I don't even "get" adjunctions, to tell you
> the truth. By which I mean that I have no intuition about them; it's not so
> hard to understand the formal definition, but it's another thing altogether
> to grasp
Tjhis presentation has been very useful for me:
Category Theory for software engineers,.
http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~sme/presentations/cat101.pdf
It is an excelent introduction using basic notations (graphs). It
includes "Applying category theory to specifications" and "Tools
based on category
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 11:46 PM, wren ng thornton wrote:
> One of the big benefits I see to using category theory for dealing with
> programming languages comes from using CT as a generalized logic for
> equational reasoning. In particular, making use of the ideas of (co)limits
> and adjunctions
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 2:03 AM, Gregg Reynolds wrote:
>
> Well, you're way ahead of me. I don't even "get" adjunctions, to tell you
> the truth. By which I mean that I have no intuition about them; it's not so
> hard to understand the formal definition, but it's another thing altogether
> to g
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Arnaud Bailly wrote:
> Hello Greg and Alexander,
> Thanks for your replies. Funnily, I happen to own the 3 books you
> mentionned :-) My interest in category theory is a long standing affair...
>
> Note that owning a book, having read (most of) it and knowing a the
-0500
> From: Gregg Reynolds
> Subject: Re: [Haskell-cafe] Category theory as a design tool
> To: Arnaud Bailly
> Cc: Haskell Cafe
> Message-ID:
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 11:30 PM, Arnaud Bailly
> wrote:
>&
On 6/22/11 3:59 PM, Arnaud Bailly wrote:
> Hello Greg and Alexander,
> Thanks for your replies. Funnily, I happen to own the 3 books you
mentionned
> :-) My interest in category theory is a long standing affair...
>
> Note that owning a book, having read (most of) it and knowing a theory (or
> at l
Hello Greg and Alexander,
Thanks for your replies. Funnily, I happen to own the 3 books you mentionned
:-) My interest in category theory is a long standing affair...
Note that owning a book, having read (most of) it and knowing a theory (or
at least its principles and main concepts) is really qui
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 11:30 PM, Arnaud Bailly
wrote:
> (2nd try, took my gloves off...)
> Hello Café,
> I have been fascinated by Cat. theory for quite a few years now, as
> most people who get close to it I think.
>
> I am a developer, working mostly in Java for my living and dabbling
> with ha
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 12:06 AM, Arnaud Bailly wrote:
> Thanks Sebastien,
> This paper has passed in my radar's field but I must confess that
> although I think I grasped the idea, I was quickly lost in the
> profusion of symbols and notations. I am no mathematician, only a
> simple developer, al
We have a saying in french for that which translates approximately to
"turn your tongue seven times in your mouth before speaking".
That's what happen when one tries to type mails and have breakfast at
the same time :-)
Cheers
Arnaud
2011/6/22 MigMit :
> I remember myself complaining about how wh
Thanks Stephen, looks interesting and congruent with few a priori I
had in mind. I have already seen in prior life connections between
modeling, MOF and category theory.
Regards
Arnaud
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 8:38 AM, Stephen Tetley
wrote:
> On 22 June 2011 05:30, Arnaud Bailly wrote:
>
>> Are
Thanks Sebastien,
This paper has passed in my radar's field but I must confess that
although I think I grasped the idea, I was quickly lost in the
profusion of symbols and notations. I am no mathematician, only a
simple developer, although I am fascinated by several topics in
mathematics so my atte
On 22 June 2011 05:30, Arnaud Bailly wrote:
> Are there works/thesis/books/articles/blogs that try to use Cat.
> theory explicitly as a tool/language for designing software (not as an
> underlying formalisation or semantics)? Is the question even
> meaningful?
You might find Don Batory (U. Texas
Hi Arnaud,
I'm not the best person to answer this question, and I'm not certain this
constitutes an answer, but you might be interested in Conal Elliott's paper
"Denotational design with type class morphisms" available at
http://conal.net/papers/type-class-morphisms/.
Sebastien
On Tue, Jun 21,
I remember myself complaining about how when one says something stupid and
corrects himself in a few minutes, it's the first message that attracts all the
attention, not the second one.
Отправлено с iPhone
Jun 22, 2011, в 8:42, Alex Rozenshteyn написал(а):
> Funny, I didn't hear anyone say "C
Funny, I didn't hear anyone say "Candlejack". What abou
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
On 22/06/2011 2:24 PM, Daniel Peebles wrote:
> Hey, I think you forgo
Hahah, this reminds me of the time I onc
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
(2nd try, took my gloves off...)
Hello Café,
I have been fascinated by Cat. theory for quite a few years now, as
most people who get close to it I think.
I am a developer, working mostly in Java for my living and dabbling
with haskell and scala in my spare time and assuming the frustration
of havi
Hey, I think you forgo
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 12:20 AM, Arnaud Bailly wrote:
> Hello,
> I ha
>
> ___
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>
___
Hello,
I ha
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
27 matches
Mail list logo
