Category theory for scientists (Old version) · HackerPapers discussions

Category theory for scientists (Old version) — HN submission

Tue, 11 Mar 2025 00:45:27 GMT

Category theory for scientists (Old version)

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

Category theory for scientists (Old version) — mentioned by mathcass

Wed, 03 Feb 2021 03:15:32 GMT

I have a disclaimer. I'm not an expert in category theory at all. However, my primary background is in mathematics and I've "looked over the basics" as they say. If you'll allow me to dodge the question just a little bit, I'd recommend that you dive in and see what it feels like to start learning it. The way I think that could proceed is to a) go find a book, lecture, video, or other resource you'd like to engage with, and b) start devouring it. If you run into conceptual difficulties, start looking online for ways to explain that difficult concept to yourself so that you can proceed.…

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

Category theory for scientists (Old version) — mentioned by JadeNB

Sun, 13 Oct 2019 20:59:28 GMT

The best way to ensure access to the newest arXiv version is not to link to a specific version at all (and also link to the abstract): https://arxiv.org/abs/1302.6946 . EDIT: But, for no comprehensible reason, Spivak has things set up so that the latest arXiv version is older (although I don't understand why a file updated February 2013 is dated April 2018 …); so just ignore me. Sorry!

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

Category theory for scientists (Old version) — mentioned by inetsee

Sun, 13 Oct 2019 20:50:00 GMT

New version (2018): https://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.6946v1.pdf The linked version is from 2013.

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

Category theory for scientists (Old version) — HN submission

Sun, 13 Oct 2019 20:24:00 GMT

Category Theory for Scientists (2018) [pdf]

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

Category theory for scientists (Old version) — mentioned by hyperion2010

Thu, 11 Dec 2014 09:30:37 GMT

If anyone wants more on categories for non mathematicians be sure to check out David Spivak's work and his book "Category Theory for Scientists" [1]. 1. http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.6946

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

Category theory for scientists (Old version) — mentioned by tel

Wed, 05 Nov 2014 20:24:10 GMT

Here are a few examples. Here's operational transforms from CT [0][1]. Here's probability theory (and thus much of ML) [2][3][4]. Lambda calculus arises as a certain kind of category. Operads form a model for wiring diagrams. Database schemata are categories [5]. [0] http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.46.7744 [1] http://bosker.wordpress.com/2012/05/10/on-editing-text/ [2] ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Giry's+monad [3] arxiv.org/pdf/1410.4432v1.pdf [4] https://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2014/10/where_do_probability_measures.html#more [5] http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.6946

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

Category theory for scientists (Old version) — mentioned by gtani

Sun, 14 Jul 2013 19:44:07 GMT

The Rosetta stone paper: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/rosetta.pdf also some preliminaries (books by Simmons, Awodey and Lawvere/Schanuel, spivak): http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.6946 http://www.reddit.com/r/math/comments/1eiyid/category_theory... http://blog.begriffs.com/2012/07/order-of-lambda.html http://debasishg.blogspot.com/2012/01/2011-year-that-was.htm...

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

Category theory for scientists (Old version) — HN submission

Fri, 24 May 2013 00:36:15 GMT

Category theory for scientists

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