Re: Misclassification of packages; "libs" and "doc" sections
"Thomas Bushnell, BSG" wrote:
> Ah, but Category Theory has nothing at all to do, anymore, with
> Aristotle's "category", or its scholastic descendants, or its use in
> Kant. Those are all related, and they have only a vague relation to
> the term in math.
Maybe so, but I guess the philosophical status of Category Theory
is not well established. As I said, what I like in Category Theory
is its formal nature. It has many interesting repercussions in the
fundamental questions such as whether there are any universals or
the nature of reference. I might have worded these wrongly, so please
correct me as the philosopher on duty here. :) Categorical Logic,
Categorial Grammar, and computational interpretations of Category
Theory are all very interesting but quite difficult to compare with
former theories of "Category".
During my rather incomplete study of semantics, I found that Category
Theory encompasses the "principle of compositionality" in profound
ways, such that one's Categorial expressions always seem to possess
a sense of concise-ness by virtue of formal properties. [As a striking
example, there's a Category Theoretic translation of Godel's completeness
theorem which is stated in a single line. It depends on some other
lines of course. :) ]
PS: We're completely offtopic, but I'd like to see every thread
here transform into a light discussion like this instead of a flame war :)
--
Eray (exa) Ozkural
Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara
e-mail: erayo@cs.bilkent.edu.tr
www: http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~erayo
Reply to: