Comments on: Category Theory ? http://artent.net/2013/08/26/category-theory/ We're blogging machines! Wed, 15 Jan 2025 16:08:06 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.0 By: hundalhh http://artent.net/2013/08/26/category-theory/#comment-1688 Mon, 26 Aug 2013 14:32:16 +0000 http://162.243.213.31/?p=2071#comment-1688 Michael Maloney wrote “One aspect of category theory that deserves mentioning is that categories (and higher categories) give a much more satisfying answer to “when are two things ‘the same’? In set theory, equality ends up too strict. You cannot distinguish the circle group and the group of unit complex numbers through group homomorphisms….” as a comment on the Categories, What’s the Point? post at Jeremy Kun’s blog.

]]> By: hundalhh http://artent.net/2013/08/26/category-theory/#comment-1687 Mon, 26 Aug 2013 14:21:28 +0000 http://162.243.213.31/?p=2071#comment-1687 Mark,
I was looking at “Causal Theories: A Categorical Perspective on Bayesian Networks” as a way of dealing with uncertainty, “probably equal”, “usually close”, or PAC, but I don’t yet understand monoidal categories, so I think I have to learn that first.

]]> By: antianticamper http://artent.net/2013/08/26/category-theory/#comment-1686 Mon, 26 Aug 2013 12:13:58 +0000 http://162.243.213.31/?p=2071#comment-1686 Conceptually, higher order categories are really interesting in that they permit a weakening of the notion of “equal.” Practically, I’m still waiting for a true down-and-dirty application for category theory.

Nice data science graphic. Metro Line #4 (machine learning) is the dangerous one and should require a federally issued license. Model fitting via convenient and powerful software without model understanding is the intellectual plague of our time and it is spreading relentlessly.

]]>