reinman

Exactly my thesis. Every programmer should be using an inference / crafting system by now in their daily tasks

Do you have any Prolog background? Inference rules? Armstrong's axioms etc.?

I would invite everyone to look at the Multix categorical machine. The FP style chains and crafting work wonderfully even over a network https://portal.multix.catatonic.ai/

It was mostly a troll article not worth reading - maybe there is a copy on wayback machine

I no longer keep things on Medium as I don't support them anymore. I'm sure there is a copy on wayback machine perhaps

Funny how the same people that expect YOU to learn a bunch of arcane FP terminology suddenly demand that everything is explained to them in kindergarten terms

Perhaps the greatest irony of FP

BTW academic CT researchers are brilliant but usually aren't programmers

But the hate is warranted. Any new tech needs to be able to stand up to criticism

Yeah I don't support Medium anymore. If you are a programmer not an academic I would suggest you play w real software https://portal.multix.catatonic.ai/

Categories are chains of morphisms

If you don't get that, maybe you missed something in your training

And yes it has everything to do with AI (not categories per se but the article)

I appreciate the feedback - it's a follow up to Part 1 for completeness, I don't expect anyone here to read it.

Bombastic articles get attention but yes I need to tone it down. I don't think anyone cares about the FP cat fights anymore anyway

You bring up an important preface that I forgot to add - thank you. Yes it does seem like I am jumping around and categories have a nasty pedagogical reputation because of how the brain is wired. Categories are a convergent tech but the human brain wants to compartmentalize, so this paper is literally pushing the opposite way we normally process information

Prolog style inference rules across a network is how Multix crafting works https://multix.substack.com/p/did-functional-programming-get...

American cities are small potatoes compared to the glittering skyscrapers of Asia. Same for tired Europe. Which is why old school arguments against the downsides of "communism" are not working anymore. Kids (and corporations) will chase money and sacrifice freedoms if necessary.

The west needs a more compelling argument why it should continue to exist beyond just money

My response https://blog.usejournal.com/monoids-to-groupoids-492c3510511...

Yes that's the point .NET is a 20 year old stack which is great for Microsoft's market cap but maybe not for the rest of the industry

- If you are confused, it is probably because FP languages are really only half the story of CT

- Adjoints are all about joining things hence the name; much like chasing dependencies (arrows) between cells in a spreadsheet and then going back to the relational database where the sheet was extracted from. You have seamlessly jumped from algebraic morphisms to geometry without even thinking about it

- Homotopy is about finding "paths" between things and therefore imply some relative naming (coordinate) scheme is possible. The segments of a path arise due to torsors. Hence homotopy is associated with paths. UNIX paths and URLs come to mind

Managing for whom? Is that a resource optimization problem? What if I use a control monad that does the same thing? If TF finds the shortest path for a computation does that make it an OS according to your definition ?

JSON and SQL are closer to preimages of data and computation manifolds respectively that are projected (or fibrated) via Kan

The top-level FP CLI is unsafe for exactly that reason http://okmij.org/ftp/Computation/monadic-shell.html

The reason that monads don't need to explicitly show up in an article about monads is because they are the same manifold as the subject line. For the same reason, people don't use the suffix "set" or "collection" when designing a relational database schema. If you are already in the manifold, it makes no sense to call it out separately (e.g. Russell's paradox)