SUO: Re: Monoclonal Antebodies
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
i apollogize for being so plodding, chris, but i have deliberately
put myself in a "keep it concrete and simple" frame of mind for the
sake of my (auto-)tutorial exercises, so let me just try to think
of some of the simpler questions that have always worried me here.
1. how does one, working solely within your favorite version of fol,
express the fact that functions are special cases of relations?
2. how does one, within the bounds of fol reason alone,
manage simple types of isomorphisms, like the fact
that a function of type f : X -> (Y -> Z) is ~=~
to a function of type f' : Y -> (X -> Z)?
jon awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
Chris Menzel wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 05:40:10PM -0400, Jon Awbrey wrote:
> >
JA: Indeed, one of the main reasons that I find so utterly useful
> > every bit of category theory that I can manage to pick up is
> > that it helps me to see the isomorphisms between things that
> > are in actuality only superficially distinct, while FO logic,
> > by comparison, is constantly bogging me down in ossified and
> > reified syntactic superficialities.
>
> As go your insufferably precious tutorials that currently
> clog the mailing list, so go your arguments. Oozing with
> form, lacking in substance.
>
> It is particularly ironic that, with your category theoretically
> enhanced ability to see the isomorphisms between things that are
> in actuality only superficially distinct, you still seem to be
> confusing FOL with particular presentations of FOL such as KIF
> or Principia Mathematica that have been devised with some
> practical or theoretical end in mind. A curious blindspot.
> If you are bogged down in ossified/reified/syntactic
> superficialities, it is because you have confused
> those superficialities with the formal structures
> they exemplify.
>
> Chris Menzel
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o