Physics, Topology, Logic and Computation: A Rosetta Stone · HackerPapers discussions

Physics, Topology, Logic and Computation: A Rosetta Stone — mentioned by lioeters

Mon, 19 Oct 2026 18:11:00 GMT

Thanks for further recommendations. Programming Language Foundations in Agda. The Diamond Age by Neal Stephenson. I made a note to look into these. Oh I see one of the authors of PLFA is Philip Wadler, whose name I recognize from Haskell and various papers on programming language theory. There's a Lean version of the book too. https://github.com/plfa/plfl > Working through a proof using a proof checker .. They all come with really sophisticated tools for interacting with the compiler and the code I have some prior experience developing a specialized code editor for a template language, and…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Physics, Topology, Logic and Computation: A Rosetta Stone — HN submission

Sat, 18 Apr 2026 09:50:39 GMT

Physics, Topology, Logic and Computation: A Rosetta Stone

2 points; 0 discussion replies on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.

Physics, Topology, Logic and Computation: A Rosetta Stone — mentioned by lioeters

Mon, 13 Apr 2026 04:37:25 GMT

Even before I started the video, I had a feeling it was going to lead to a kind of "introspective" mathematics that can reason about its own reasoning. I was not disappointed, thank you. Physics, Topology, Logic and Computation: A Rosetta Stone - https://arxiv.org/abs/0903.0340

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Physics, Topology, Logic and Computation: A Rosetta Stone — mentioned by sw1sh

Sun, 23 Feb 2025 06:43:08 GMT

I like Inverse types! While it's not novel idea, this seems like a very concise implementation of it. Inverse types are also known as negative types (https://legacy.cs.indiana.edu/~sabry/papers/rational.pdf) or holes. This concept is what needed to make a concrete category for computation compact (highly recommend: http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.0340) and make the connection to how our physical universe actually works on a quantum level, with antiparticles performing backward computation. I'm pretty sure this model of computation of filling holes with inference would allow us to understand…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Physics, Topology, Logic and Computation: A Rosetta Stone — HN submission

Tue, 16 Jan 2024 22:09:21 GMT

Physics, Topology, Logic and Computation: A Rosetta Stone

1 point; 0 discussion replies on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.

Physics, Topology, Logic and Computation: A Rosetta Stone — mentioned by mathgenius

Tue, 01 Nov 2022 08:14:58 GMT

John Baez has written a lot about this stuff. Try this: https://arxiv.org/abs/0903.0340 . There's also his TWF column.

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Physics, Topology, Logic and Computation: A Rosetta Stone — HN submission

Wed, 01 Dec 2021 23:42:08 GMT

Physics, Topology, Logic and Computation: A Rosetta Stone by Baez and Stay

2 points; 0 discussion replies on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.

Physics, Topology, Logic and Computation: A Rosetta Stone — mentioned by benrbray

Fri, 30 Apr 2021 02:59:56 GMT

See e.g. Baez & Stay 2009, "Physics, Topology, Logic, and Computation: A Rosetta Stone". [1] [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/0903.0340

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Physics, Topology, Logic and Computation: A Rosetta Stone — mentioned by random3

Wed, 02 Sep 2020 17:45:28 GMT

Wow, what a combo! I'd be interested in anything from each of the lecturers, but all 3 at the same course, is amazing. Category Theory could be the rosetta stone of many things(this is relevant https://arxiv.org/pdf/0903.0340.pdf).

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Physics, Topology, Logic and Computation: A Rosetta Stone — mentioned by 0815test

Sat, 13 Jul 2019 13:59:36 GMT

See https://arxiv.org/abs/0903.0340 for a basic introduction to the issues, and https://arxiv.org/abs/0908.3347 for a slightly more extensive treatment, also mentioning proof nets. This does not explicitly say that these diagrams can be understood as the equivalent to sequences in something FORTH-like, but this is in fact what the papers are pointing out in a general sense, so I see it as a rather trivial remark.

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Physics, Topology, Logic and Computation: A Rosetta Stone — mentioned by mathgenius

Sun, 23 Sep 2018 04:19:21 GMT

This line of thought is very interesting indeed. Understanding the similarity/contrast to the join operator is really at the heart of what quantum is about. It comes down to, what do you mean by "and" ? Check out the breezy writing in this paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/1602.07618 Also, the Rosetta stone paper (more advanced): https://arxiv.org/abs/0903.0340

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Physics, Topology, Logic and Computation: A Rosetta Stone — mentioned by danharaj

Thu, 07 Jun 2018 01:12:14 GMT

What I'm saying is that linear logic is exactly a technical exploration directly pertinent to the questions Quine and Dummett considered. And who cares if the paper is specifically about Quine and Dummett? What's the point of resuscitating such a dialogue without informing it of modern developments? To do so seems like frolicking in the graveyard. But much like philosophy of mathematics (with some exceptions like [0]), philosophy of logic to me at least seems like it prefers dusty bones to fresh developments (if 40 years is fresh...). At the very least, modern logic and its myriad connections…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Physics, Topology, Logic and Computation: A Rosetta Stone — mentioned by tupshin

Mon, 26 Mar 2018 13:45:21 GMT

https://arxiv.org/abs/0903.0340

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Physics, Topology, Logic and Computation: A Rosetta Stone — mentioned by posterboy

Sun, 05 Nov 2017 11:09:20 GMT

Isn't that what category theory is about, on the meta level, and in the result in case of specific isomorphisms, too? edit: at that I still have John C. Baez, Mike Stay - "Physics, Topology, Logic and Computation: A Rosetta Stone" on my reading list https://arxiv.org/abs/0903.0340

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Physics, Topology, Logic and Computation: A Rosetta Stone — HN submission

Sat, 07 Oct 2017 09:19:48 GMT

Physics, Topology, Logic and Computation: A Rosetta Stone (2009) [pdf]

146 points; 31 discussion replies on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.

Physics, Topology, Logic and Computation: A Rosetta Stone — mentioned by empath75

Tue, 03 Jan 2017 16:10:23 GMT

https://arxiv.org/abs/0903.0340

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Physics, Topology, Logic and Computation: A Rosetta Stone — HN submission

Mon, 28 Nov 2016 01:19:38 GMT

Physics, Topology, Logic, and Computation: A Rosetta Stone (2009)

101 points; 11 discussion replies on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.

Physics, Topology, Logic and Computation: A Rosetta Stone — mentioned by orbifold

Sun, 27 Nov 2016 21:47:52 GMT

An interesting published review of this relationship is "Physics, Topology, Logic and Computation: A Rosetta Stone", by John C. Baez, Mike Stay https://arxiv.org/abs/0903.0340. The first author alos has lots of interesting stuff related to (quantum) computation on his website.

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Physics, Topology, Logic and Computation: A Rosetta Stone — HN submission

Sun, 14 Feb 2016 03:29:12 GMT

Physics, Topology, Logic and Computation: A Rosetta Stone

4 points; 1 discussion reply on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.

Physics, Topology, Logic and Computation: A Rosetta Stone — mentioned by JadeNB

Wed, 03 Jun 2015 19:51:14 GMT

> So it would be useful to have category textbooks for CS folks which spent less time on topology, and more time on familiar categories. Agreed, and I should have been clearer in my post above that I was just airing some thoughts on category theory rather than meaning to imply anything negative about the importance and usefulness of X-flavoured viewpoints on category theory for various values of X (including "computer science"). With that said, don't knock topology! See Baez and Stay's 'Rosetta stone' article http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.0340 for a plethora of connections between such seemingly…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Physics, Topology, Logic and Computation: A Rosetta Stone — HN submission

Sun, 22 Jun 2014 19:33:54 GMT

Physics, Topology, Logic and Computation: A Rosetta Stone (2009)

99 points; 9 discussion replies on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.

Physics, Topology, Logic and Computation: A Rosetta Stone — HN submission

Sun, 12 Feb 2012 22:10:26 GMT

The unifying theory underlying physics, topology, logic and computation[pdf]

2 points; 0 discussion replies on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.

Physics, Topology, Logic and Computation: A Rosetta Stone — HN submission

Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:14:35 GMT

Physics, Topology, Logic and Computation: A Rosetta Stone

44 points; 4 discussion replies on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.