I need a hard objective and harsh assessment of the demos, moves pages, all this effort I make. I am looking for funding, I don’t get one presently, so there might be something wrong I do.

Please be as harsh as possible. Thank you!

I am waiting for your comments. If you want to make a private comment then add in your message the following string

pe-240v

and the comment will go to the moderation queue.

If you have not made any comments here, until now, then by default the comment goes to moderation.

So, please mention in the comment if you want to keep it private.

Assessment for what?

or anything about chemlambda.

This is a big project, I see people are interested in more advanced stuff, like distributed computing, but they usually fail to understand the basics.

On the other side, I am a mathematician learning to program. So I’m lousy at that (for the moment), but I hope I make my point about the basics with these demos and help pages.

_________________________________________________________________________

### Like this:

Like Loading...

*Related*

I’m a fan obviously, but probably not the ‘droid you’re looking for’.

Mine is a very superficial appreciation to date, I’m afraid.

I hope to get beyond that level in future but my head is full with my own struggle a.t.m. I love the elegance of the idea, distributed computing etc. There is a nagging sense that I might be able to borrow on your ideas in future but I cannot point to any specifics as yet.

Feedback on my project has been very thin too, so I’ve had to do much hard slog on my own. It’s hard work, hard as anything I’ve ever done.

& that’s on an idea now pegging 25 years incubation!

All’s I can offer is encouragement.

Marius, *these* are the ‘droids’ you’re looking for!

https://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2015/01/27/mathematical-trends-in-reaction-network-theory/

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/networks/networks_17.html

http://www.math.ku.dk/~efeliu/trendsrnt/index.html

Get thee to Copenhagen…

*Important dates

Abstract submission for posters and contributed talks: March 15, 2015.

Notification of acceptance: March 26, 2015.

Registration deadline: May 15, 2015.

Conference: July 1-3, 2015.

Phillip, that’s of no use. I explained this several times. You see graphs and molecules and you think about the categorical approach of Baez and about graphs as diagrams like in categorical quantum mechanics. This is superficial, for two reasons. 1) The graphs I use are more general than the one used by Baez because they use graphs with a global external time direction, which are like flow charts, ie. gates and wires carrying signals; my graphs don’t have or need such global orientation, nor are they flowcharts, is much more general, 2) chemical reaction networks are a well known model of computation, but by far not the only one which can be used. Just because I call the graphs “molecules” it does not mean that I have to use, again, a global, from the god point of view model of computation, which demands global space and global time to make sense, like the CRN. Much better in this respect is the Actor Model. In conclusion, that is not useful, even if it looks fancy. It is not fancy, just an old boys late industrial revolution mindset, wrapped in a lot of propaganda. I learned this the hard way.

Begging your pardon Marius. That was a superficial linkage on my behalf. I’ll try not to dig myself deeper.

Phillip, nothing to apologize about. I just had the same discussion 1000 times. Look, I pushed today this demo, see also here at chorasimilarity the posts about “topology does compute” (like in chemlambda) vs “topology does not compute” (like in categorical stuff, where it serves to prove equivalences between computations, not computations properly) here.

Hello Marius,

I got to this old post from your more recent one (“Ask me anything about chemlambda or open science”), and I wanted to respond to this comment (also because I’ve seen you express similar skepticism about category theory elsewhere). I think that you might have an overly narrow impression of what exactly is the “categorical approach”, and that John Baez’s approach to “network theory” is actually closer in spirit to your own than you expect. In particular, you might be surprised to hear his response to a question at the end of a talk at Oxford (“Network Theory: Overview”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9VmyR-OMpM#t=3123), answering a question about the role of computer science (52:02-56:35). Here’s a quote from the end of that segment:

“…but the fact that the people who’ve used category theory to try to understand the lambda calculus have buried the part that’s what people in lambda calculus think of as the interesting part suggests that there’s a lot of room for development”.

See also his remarks at the end of “Network Theory I: electrical circuits and signal-flow graphs” (https://youtu.be/p3CUOwuqmm0?t=1h1m41s), where he talks about “taking diagrams seriously as *things*”.

Hello Noam, I’m not against category theory. From what I know, I don’t have a narrow vision, they do. Otherwise they wouldn’t claim the universality which is simply false, for those who know a bit more about math. I tried to politely communicate with people like John Baez, whom I used to respect enormously (because his proto-blog). some time ago, true, but I tried honestly to discuss with CT fundamentalists, with no concrete result. They don’t discuss. they do PR. I am sure, that, on the other side, sadly, they will move the goal posts and start to include some external ideas, which is the most sincere form of admiration. I am saddened about their lack of openess. If I’m wrong about this then I stand to be corrected, of course.