Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: SUO: Re: The lattice of theories + language-games

"John F. Sowa" a écrit :


> Folks,
> I agree with Robert.  But I believe that either he needs to get
> a translator or he needs to spend some time learning to write
> in English.

I agree with you John :-)

But this not so much a matter of English than a matter of getting
in touch with "everyday's world".
One should not assume that the reader share your own knowledge and
capabilities, specially for topics like category theory.

For myself, in spite of having several times run thru the (excellent)
"Gentle Introduction to Category Theory" by Maarten Fokkinga:

and being able to painfully make some simple proofs or follow some
elaborate ones, I never got the "feeling" for categories.
While sets for instance are much closer to "ordinary" intuition and
set based arguments more easily grasped.
So, yes, this kind of stuff needs to be carefully explained in ordinary
English, even if the subtleties cannot really get thru.

It would be a pity that the IFF does not get the acceptance it deserves
for lack of "marketing" care.
And even more so because, I think, category based semantics are likely
to be much more fruitfull than set theory semantics. 
Specially, categorial equivalence is probably more significant to define 
"concepts identity" than any other kind of equivalence.

Try it Robert, or preferably have someone else "translate" the IFF because
you will never realize what's difficult for other people to *grok*.


-- Jean-Luc Delatre
"Ignorance is never out of style. It was in fashion yesterday, 
 it is the rage today, and it will set the pace tomorrow."
  -- Franklin K. Dane 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------  -- GSM: +33 6 11 24 06 29