semantic enquirer's want to know

I have been fooling with getting up my nerve
to buy Mathematica computer algebra
(Mathematica has a functional programming approach) software
so I can simplify a study of category theory
which in turn can simplify horrific algebraic topology which might simplify
Balahandran's "Fuzzy Physics" which is attempting to approach
quantum topology.

Meanwhile I've been doing bench presses and feeling like a dumb athlete
doing Maple computer algebra recipes intensively at my mom's
from which I am back.

I am embarrassed to write Balahandran the simple question :
"Would category theory simplify your quest of quantum topology?"
I am embarrassed to write or call Mathematica or Oxford and ask :
"Do you have leads on a course I could make myself in category theory
with Mathematica exercises"
I am very very embarrassed to ask myself to make exercises all by myself.

Wikipedia often gives me the gestalts I need to get out of such holes
I step in. That the second link is doing data structures to navigate
wikipedia
is heartening for the future.

As for now, I must simply e mail these people, perhaps be ignored
and feel humiliated and then exercise like an athlete to make myself sleep
to cure myself of the worry at being ignored so I can do my own
"semantic reallignment".

Very interesting.

On 5/11/07, [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I have been fooling with getting up my nerve
> to buy Mathematica computer algebra
> (Mathematica has a functional programming approach) software
> so I can simplify a study of category theory
> which in turn can simplify horrific algebraic topology which might simplify
> Balahandran's "Fuzzy Physics" which is attempting to approach
> quantum topology.

When I was in grad school, I heard a lot about category theory and
even got a book that claimed to describe how to apply it to computer
science, but I couldn't figure it out past the first few chapters.
When I became a professor, someone from the math department advertised
a course in category theory designed for computer scientists.  It was
a small class, three or four math grad students, three or four CS grad
students, and three CS professors, of which I was one.  I was lost
after a couple of weeks, and dropped out half way through the course.
One of the other professor stuck it out to the bitter end, but said
that he still couldn't see how to apply it.  Category theory is the
theory about everything, and there isn't much you can say about
everything.  The more broad your theory, the more shallow.

This was a long time ago, and perhaps people since then have figured
out how to make category theory useful.  But the people I talk to are
not telling me that is so.  I think category theory is still mostly
interesting to mathematicians, and is not yet to the point where it is
useful to engineers.

It took me three attempts to figure out denotational semantics, but I
did.  So, I know I can figure out complex math if I need to.  But I
want to know that my effort will pay off, and what I know about
category theory suggests that it won't.

My suggestion is to be happy that you are ignorant of category theory,
and to spend your time on things that are more likely to be
enlightening.

Mathematica  is a wonderful tool if you want to do calculus or
physics. Or algebra.   I doubt it will teach you much about category
theory.

-Ralph Johnson

On Fri, 2007-05-11 at 12:12 -0500, Ralph Johnson wrote:
Bert and Howard,

While I do not understand a tenth of what these guys are writing about,
you gotta be proud that there are folks on this list pushing the
envelope here to carry Croquet to the 22nd Century. That lights me up!
Ric