category theory
↑ 36 References
These notes are made up of nested blocks (i.e. bullet points). You can access a block directly by clicking the arrow on the right side of the block. In theory, this could be a way to link between different people’s notes (i.e. Knowledge Graphs), and have direct access to the block hierarchy in published notes the same way one does in Logseq. Long-term, I hope to use this system to add more semantic meaning to the linked connections between notes, and explore the possible ramifications of surfacing their underlying categorical structure.
These notes are made up of nested blocks (i.e. bullet points). You can access a block directly by clicking the arrow on the right side of the block. In theory, this coulud be a way to link between different people’s notes (i.e. Knowledge Graphs), and have direct access to the block hierarchy in published notes the same way one does in Logseq. Long-term, I hope to use this system to add more semantic meaning to the linked connections between notes, and explore the possible ramifications of surfacing their underlying categorical structure.
here I am using the term category theory term functor to describe a (potentially lossy) translation between two “knowledge graphs”
I study the ways personal and interpersonal systems can be made functional to improve cognitive simplicity, including borrowing ideas from category theory and other metamathematical ideas.
In my mind, this is a more formal and categorical version of building a knowledge graph in logseq.
This of course means that you can also have arrows from “edges” to “edges”, but not sure that most note repositories will find that useful. Nonetheless, another nod to category theory by adding a way to sort of create functors.
This of course means that you can also have arrows from “edges” to “edges”, but not sure that most note repositories will find that useful. Nonetheless, another nod to category theory by adding a way to sort of create functors.
topos institute is doing a new introductory category theory resource, and they are taking input on how to do it
Even if knowledge cannot be represented as a graph, it does seem like a lot can be represented as a category theory Category
There is a nod here to category theory. I’m not yet sure what to make of it, but I have a desire to make a note-taking language that can essentially be the language of category theory. If ever achieved, then, in theory, anything that can be represented by a Category can be represented as knowledge graph of notes.
Similarly to the category theory relationship, in the back of my head I think of this as a functional language for writing.
Has some structural similarities to category theory, where you abstract away the details of the individual objects in the category, and now only about the way they interact with each other.
Similarly to the category theory relationship, in the back of my head I think of this as a functional language for writing.
There is a nod here to category theory. I’m not yet sure what to make of it, but I have a desire to make a note-taking language that can essentially be the language of category theory. If ever achieved, then, in theory, anything that can be represented by a Category can be represented as knowledge graph of notes.
There is almost certainly a better way to represent functions between notes in this category theory representation (is it just haskell?), but I thought I’d put this attempt to the test for a while.
Why is Abstract Algebra important? I think it is related to logic, philosophy, category theory, and mathematical logic.
There is almost certainly a better way to represent functions between notes in this category theory representation (is it just haskell?), but I thought I’d put this attempt to the test for a while.
Side note: I’m thinking about category theory and considering knowledge graphs to be categories and translations between them to be functors.