Your turn to fix the world 🙂 Any ideas?
Your turn to fix the world 🙂 Any ideas?
If you google
this uniquely identifies an article I wrote back in in 2010, the year when I discovered that I have to go in a new direction (for me).
[UPDATE: no longer true, Google adapted and now it points to a number of my pages where there is none of the words searched…]
There are two different ideas in that article:
That and the collapsing of the wave function is an orwellian theory and the minimal action principle is stalinesque, if we apply to physics the classification of Dennett of theories of biological vision.
Somewhere in the text you’ll find as well “her exploratory cries”. And a mutant army of bats 🙂
… or the unreasonable effectiveness of category theory in blockchain investments.
A year ago I wrote the post Blockchain categoricitis and now I see my prediction happening.
Categoricitis is the name of a disease which infects the predisposed fans of category theory, those which are not armed with powerfull mathematical antibodies. Show them some diagrams from the height of your academic tower, tell them you have answers for real problems and they will believe.
Case in point: RChain. See Boom, bust and blockchain: RChain Cooperative’s cryptocurrency dreams dissolve into controversy.
Yes, just another cryptocurrency story… Wait a moment, this one is different, because it is backed by strong mathematical authority! You’ll practically see all the actors from the GeekWire story mentioned in the posts linked further.
“Programmers, venture capitalists, blockchain enthusiasts, experts in software, finance, and mathematics: myriad perspectives from around the globe came to join in the dawn of a new internet. Let’s just say, it’s a lot to take in. This project is the real deal – the idea is revolutionary […]”
RChain is light years ahead of the industry. Why? It is upholding the principle of correct by construction with the depth and rigor of mathematics.”
Incidentally (but which fan reads everything?) in the same post Baez is candid about computation and category theory.
“When I first started, I thought the basic story would be obvious: people must be making up categories where the morphisms describe processes of computation.
But I soon learned I was wrong: […] the morphisms were equivalence classes of things going between data types—and this equivalence relation completely washed out the difference, between, say, a program that actually computes 237 × 419 and a program that just prints out 99303, which happens to be the answer to that problem.
In other words, the actual process of computation was not visible in the category-theoretic framework.” [boldfaced by me]
(then he goes on to say that 2-categories are needed in fact, etc.)
In Applied Category Theory at NIST (archived) we read:
“The workshop aims to bring together two distinct groups. First, category theorists interested in pursuing applications outside of the usual mathematical fields. Second, domain experts and research managers from industry, government, science and engineering who have in mind potential domain applications for categorical methods.”
and we see an animation from the post “Correct-by-construction Casper | A Visualization for the Future of Blockchain Consensus“.
I never trusted these ideas. I had interactions with some of the actors in this story (example) (another example), basically around distributed GLC . Between 2013-2015, instead of writing programs the fans of GLC practically killed the distributed GLC project because it was all the time presented in misleading terms of agents and processes, despite my dislike. Which made me write chemlambda, so eventually that was good.
[hype] GLC and chemlambda are sort of ideal Lisp machines which you can cut in half and they still work. But you have to renounce at semantics for that, which makes this description very different from the actual Lisp machines. [/hype]
How perennial is this blog? I took the top 20 directly accessed posts in each year, for 2017, 2018 and 2019 up to Feb 10.
Conclusion:from the 665 posts from this blog (666 with this one)
Also, 2015 and 2016 are not well represented in top 20, probably because of the chemlambda collection. Sad, because there are many other things here than chemlambda, for example posts about OA and OS.
Here is the data. Mind that the data probably represents only post read by people who don’t use blockers, as seen via the stats page of the blog. Helas, I would like to know what is the real situation, while in the same time I advice everybody to use blockers, as I do. As an author, I do need a bit a love though, indulge me.
2019 (up to Feb 10):
Category theory does not make predictions.
This is a black and white formulation, so there certainly are exceptions. Feel free to contradict.
UPDATE: As I’m watching Gromov on probability, symmetry, linearity, the first part:
I can’t stop noticing several things:
Yes, my opinion is that indeed the category theory language is more evolved than classical. But there is an even more evolved stage: computation theory made geometrical (or more symmetric, without the need for states, enumerations, etc).
Category theory is some kind of trap for those mathematicians who want to say something is computable or something is, or should be an algorithm, but they don’t know how to say it correctly. Corectly means without the burden of external, unnatural bagagge, like enumeration, naming, evaluations, etc. So they resort to category theory language, because it allows them to abstract over sets, enumerations, etc.
There is no, yet, a fully geometrical version of computation theory.
What Gromov wants is to express himself in that ideal computation theory, but instead he only has category theory language to use.
Gromov computes and then he says this is not a computation.
Grothendieck, when he soaks the nut in the water, he lets the water compute. He just build a computer and let it run. He reports the results, that’s what classical mathematical language permits.
That’s the problem with category theory, it does not compute, properly, just reports the results of it.
As concerns the real way humans use category theory…
Mathematicians use category theory as a tool, or as a notation, or as a thought discipline, or as an explanation style. Definitely useful for the informed researcher! Or a life purpose for a few minds.
All hype for the fans of mathematics, computer science or other sciences. To them, category theory gives the false impression of understanding. Deep inside, the fan of science (who does not want/have time/understands anything of the subject) feels that all creative insights are based on a small repertoire of simple (apparently) tricks. Something that the fan can do, something which looks science-y, without the effort.
Then, there are the programmers, wonderful clever people who practice a new science and long for recognition from the classics 🙂 Category theory seems modular enough for them. A tool for abstraction, too, something they are trained in. And — why don’t you recognize? — with that eternal polish of mathematics, but without the effort.
This is exploited cynically by good public communicators with a creativity problem. The recipe is: explain. Take an older, difficult creation, wash it with category theory and present it as new.
Unexpectedly and somehow contrary to my fresh posting about my plans for 2019, during the week of Jan 7-12, 2019 a new project appeared, which is temporary named Kaleidoscope. [Other names, until now: kaleidos, morphoo. Other suggestions?]
This post marks the appearance of the project in my log. I lost some time for a temporary graphical label of it:
I have the opinion that new, very promising projects need a name and a label, as much as an action movie superhero needs a punchline and a mask.
So what is the kaleidoscope? It is as much about mechanical computers (or physically embedded computation) as it is about graph rewrite systems and about space in the sense of emergent algebras and about probabilities. It is a physics theory, a computation model and a geometry in the same time.
What can I wish more, research wise?
Yes, so it deserves to be tried and verified in all details and this takes some time. I do hope that it will survive to my bugs hunt so that I can show it and submit it to your validation efforts.
9 months ago I deleted my Twitter account, see this post. Just now I looked to see if there are traces left. To my surprise I get the message:
See for yourself: link.
This is a lie. I feel furious about the fact that this company shows a misleading information about me, long after I deleted my account.