home.social

#enrichedcategory — Public Fediverse posts

Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #enrichedcategory, aggregated by home.social.

  1. ChatGPT has a new sister called Monday. I will let you find out about that. Meanwhile here is what ChatGPT says about using enriched categories to model relevance logic:

    An Example Sketch

    Let V=Pos be a poset-enriched monoidal category where each hom-object is a set of “proofs” or “derivations,” ordered by resource usage.

    Then C(A,B) is itself an object in Pos, i.e., a poset of ways to prove B from A.

    The product ⊗ inside C does not come with free projections, so there is no arrow from (A⊗B) to B in general.

    If someone claims “Surely, we can discard A and prove B anyway,” the poset of proofs for C(A⊗B,B) is _empty_, or has no minimal element if your ordering demands using all resources.

    Thus, the absence of a projection morphism is encoded in the structure of the hom-object: it simply does not contain a suitable proof.

    --
    here 'resource usage' is 'relevant stuff'

    You can write (A⊗B) -> B, in a diagram. But that arrow is "False", so it doesn't really "exist". Enriched categories capture this concept.

    #RelevanceLogic #categorytheory #enrichedcategory #rm3

  2. ChatGPT has a new sister called Monday. I will let you find out about that. Meanwhile here is what ChatGPT says about using enriched categories to model relevance logic:

    An Example Sketch

    Let V=Pos be a poset-enriched monoidal category where each hom-object is a set of “proofs” or “derivations,” ordered by resource usage.

    Then C(A,B) is itself an object in Pos, i.e., a poset of ways to prove B from A.

    The product ⊗ inside C does not come with free projections, so there is no arrow from (A⊗B) to B in general.

    If someone claims “Surely, we can discard A and prove B anyway,” the poset of proofs for C(A⊗B,B) is _empty_, or has no minimal element if your ordering demands using all resources.

    Thus, the absence of a projection morphism is encoded in the structure of the hom-object: it simply does not contain a suitable proof.

    --
    here 'resource usage' is 'relevant stuff'

    You can write (A⊗B) -> B, in a diagram. But that arrow is "False", so it doesn't really "exist". Enriched categories capture this concept.

    #RelevanceLogic #categorytheory #enrichedcategory #rm3

  3. ChatGPT has a new sister called Monday. I will let you find out about that. Meanwhile here is what ChatGPT says about using enriched categories to model relevance logic:

    An Example Sketch

    Let V=Pos be a poset-enriched monoidal category where each hom-object is a set of “proofs” or “derivations,” ordered by resource usage.

    Then C(A,B) is itself an object in Pos, i.e., a poset of ways to prove B from A.

    The product ⊗ inside C does not come with free projections, so there is no arrow from (A⊗B) to B in general.

    If someone claims “Surely, we can discard A and prove B anyway,” the poset of proofs for C(A⊗B,B) is _empty_, or has no minimal element if your ordering demands using all resources.

    Thus, the absence of a projection morphism is encoded in the structure of the hom-object: it simply does not contain a suitable proof.

    --
    here 'resource usage' is 'relevant stuff'

    You can write (A⊗B) -> B, in a diagram. But that arrow is "False", so it doesn't really "exist". Enriched categories capture this concept.

    #RelevanceLogic #categorytheory #enrichedcategory #rm3