Hacker News Reader

Comment by pizza | Hacker News Reader

Very interesting. Somewhat ironically, I think I would understand the article better with some examples of actual transformations/applications of category theory in original problem domains.

View on HN

Category theory basically reshaped the language (and methodology, in some sense) of large swaths of modern mathematics. So it s applied more like the set theory, as a foundation. But it’s hard to explain to people not steeped in the subject.

Although, to play devil's advocate, you can prove results with set theory that you'd care about even if you weren't super interested in foundations, usually by playing with different cardinalities. E.g.:

Call a real number "algebraic" if it's a zero to some polynomial with rational coefficients. (e.g. \sqrt{2} is algebraic since it's a zero for x^2 - 2). Claim: There exist non-algebraic ("transcendental") numbers. Proof: There are only countably many polynomials, and so there are only countably many algebraic numbers, but there are uncountably many reals. Similarly, there are numbers that aren't Turning-computable. Etc.

If you write out your statements encoded in say ZFC no one would recognize what you are saying. Sometimes the concept of sets and set relationships fit our needs exactly. Other times we build more user friendly concepts on top of set theory like an API. Categorial constructions are also everywhere whether one recognizes them or not.

"But it’s hard to explain to people not steeped in the subject."

I don't agree. Actually it can be understood relatively easily, if it's explained well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ho7oagHeqNc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0aYcq1tqMo

I didn’t mean that category theory itself is hard to explain. I meant that its application to modern math (esp. non trivial ones) is hard to explain without bringing in sufficient math background.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com