Not signed in (Sign In)

Start a new discussion

Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

  • Sign in using OpenID

Site Tag Cloud

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-theory cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive constructive-mathematics cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration foundation foundations functional-analysis functor galois-theory gauge-theory gebra geometric geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nforum nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pages pasting philosophy physics pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory type type-theory universal variational-calculus

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to nForum
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorAlexisHazell
    • CommentTimeNov 2nd 2018

    Create page, add some initial references. Referenced from the ’category theory’ page.

    v1, current

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorAlexisHazell
    • CommentTimeNov 3rd 2018

    Added reference to Brandon Coya’s “Circuits, Bond Graphs, and Signal-Flow Diagrams: A Categorical Perspective”.

    diff, v2, current

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorAlexisHazell
    • CommentTimeNov 3rd 2018

    Added various papers by Baez, Fong and Pollard.

    diff, v2, current

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorSam Staton
    • CommentTimeNov 3rd 2018

    I’m not at all sure that this should be a page, because there is some controversy about trying to fix a general definition of “applied category theory”. Either way, for the time being, I copied some extra context from Tai-Danae’s notes to make it clear that applications of category theory in Maths, CS and Physics are applied category theory from her perspective. And also to give the context that these notes were amassed during the ACT school, as she writes.

    diff, v3, current

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeNov 3rd 2018
    • (edited Nov 3rd 2018)

    added a lead-in paragraph that points back to category theory.

    Also made the intended pointer to the references be a pointer to the references. See the source code for how this works, for more see at HowTo the section How to cite and record references

    diff, v4, current

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeNov 3rd 2018

    Yeah, consonant with #4, I’m pretty uneasy with the way this phrase has been appropriated recently.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeNov 4th 2018
    • (edited Nov 4th 2018)

    All the more would it make sense to have our entry provide clarification.

    I had tried to go in this direction with the lines that I had added as of #5. For the record, here is what I had added:

    The whole point of category theory is to study fundamental general abstract patterns and phenomena that (re-)appear throughout mathematics. Hence applications of theorems of category theory are ubiquituous in mathematics and in subjects with a mathematical basis, such as physics and computer science. Often this goes without saying.

    I was thinking of further adding something to the extent that category theory is strongest when its applications are not announced with much aplomb, but just happen, much like results of, say, complex function theory are not announced much but just happen. There is no “complex function theory approach to physics” not because complex function theory wouldn’t have such applications but, on the contrary, its applications are so ubiquituous and the tools so fundamental to mathematics, that invoking them goes without saying. Same should apply to category theory, in fact even more so.

    The problem that we are all sensing is with people who, despite their fondness of category theory, maybe don’t appreciate yet the sheer scope of methods of category theory, who will talk about the “topos approach to physics” meaning by it but the one, tiny aspect of Bohr toposes and being ignorant of the all-pervading role that topos theory plays in setting up even the foundations of classical physics; or even the “category approach to quantum physics” (as in the references quoted in the entry) meaning by it but the one tiny aspect of finite quantum mechanics in terms of dagger-compact categories. Incidentally, it is to a large extent the utterly immense success of the latter in attracting grants and public attention which has been driving the phenomenon we are seeing here.

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeNov 4th 2018

    There is no “complex function theory approach to physics” not because complex function theory wouldn’t have such applications but, on the contrary, its applications are so ubiquituous and the tools so fundamental to mathematics, that invoking them goes without saying.

    Mind you, I’d still like to know if there’s anything general we can say about its appearance, as we began discussing back here.

    As for “applied category theory”, such branding was always going to be contentious. You can see why people who see an opportunity to develop large tracks of terrain that haven’t been touched yet by category theory (engineering, biology, neuroscience) want to make common cause. But then they can’t help but come close to applications in computer science, which are wrapped up in some prominent centres with a certain small patch of physics. So then people come together to form a journal Compositionality, treating applications in computation, logic, physics, chemistry, engineering, linguistics, and cognition. If taken at its word this should now include all the work that Urs has been pointing us to in M-theory, which as far as I can see touches a vast portion of whatever interesting is going on in pure mathematics. But then what is the domain one is trying to carve out?

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeNov 4th 2018
    • (edited Nov 4th 2018)

    Maybe my point is most easily seen when considering the would-be analogs “applied set theory” or “applied logic”.

    (alas, as Google knows, there is both a “Journal of applied Logic” and a “Jornal of applied Set Theory”.)

    But then, I wonder how many laymen are aware that the most heavy-duty application of enriched category theory to date is algebraic topology. Maybe that subject should be renamed to “Applied enriched category theory”! ;-)

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorAlexisHazell
    • CommentTimeDec 9th 2018

    Added reference to Hedges and Lewis’ “Towards Functorial Language-Games”.

    diff, v5, current

Add your comments
  • Please log in or leave your comment as a "guest post". If commenting as a "guest", please include your name in the message as a courtesy. Note: only certain categories allow guest posts.
  • To produce a hyperlink to an nLab entry, simply put double square brackets around its name, e.g. [[category]]. To use (La)TeX mathematics in your post, make sure Markdown+Itex is selected below and put your mathematics between dollar signs as usual. Only a subset of the usual TeX math commands are accepted: see here for a list.

  • (Help)