
Physics, Topology, Logic and Computation: A Rosetta Stone (2009) [pdf] - gfredtech
https://arxiv.org/abs/0903.0340
======
FredrikMeyer
John Baez is a fantastic writer. His home page is full of wonderful
illustrations and expository stuff (physics, mathematics, climate science,
...) [http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/](http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/)

------
tbenst
There's also a code base for GHC based on this work called Subhask. It's
technically Haskell but replaces so much of the functor/monad hierarchy that
it's effectively a different language.

[https://github.com/mikeizbicki/subhask](https://github.com/mikeizbicki/subhask)

------
0xFFC
Not related : I am looking for a book about quantum physics but without
(applied) math part, i dont have any problems with math and I enjoy pure-math,
but i dont want to spend my time reading calculations. Kind of like deep
phenomena going on in sub particle physics.

Haven’t find any yet, i would appreciate if suggest me any book.

~~~
philipov
[http://theoreticalminimum.com/courses](http://theoreticalminimum.com/courses)

Leonard Susskind's series of courses at Stanford's School of Continuing
Education are a treasure. They cover the math required, but the focus is on
the pure math necessary so you can move on to the next thing, and not a lot on
rote calculation.

~~~
0xFFC
This is _the_ best. Thank you so much

------
zengid
What's the difference between type theory and category theory? How are they
related?

~~~
mbid
People think of type theory as "internal language" of categories with certain
properties (e.g. simply typed typed type theory for cartesian closed
categories). A formal way to say this is that the syntax of type theory gives
rise to category with certain properties, and this category is initial among
such categories. This means that it is, in a sense, the minimal category that
satisfies these properties, so that all constructions in type theory give rise
to this construction in _every_ such category.

To me personally, type theory feels a little like an ugly definition of this
initial "category with X", and I'm currently exploring in my thesis whether a
syntax derived from the categorical definitions itself could also be used for
the same purpose as type theory is today.

------
100ideas
Previous discussion (10 comments):
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12317525](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12317525)

------
yread
The article is by John Baez who has an awesome blog
[https://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com](https://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com)

He has some really inspiring stuff there like the topology of mosaics in
Alhambra

------
adamnemecek
Homotopy type theory is a proof of this.

~~~
mrkgnao
This sentence doesn't really make sense, insofar as TFA isn't about some
conjecture.

~~~
adamnemecek
I meant to say "also a proof of this".

