<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>A survey of graphical languages for monoidal categories · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/0908.3347/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/0908.3347/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>A survey of graphical languages for monoidal categories — mentioned by 0815test</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20428075</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:0908.3347:20428075</guid><pubDate>Sat, 13 Jul 2019 13:59:36 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/0908.3347/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>math.CT</category></item></channel></rss>
