
Theoretical Computer Science for the Working Category Theorist [pdf] - aq3cn
https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.03090
======
mathgenius
The thing is, any "working category theorist" can see the objects and
morphisms of a category from a mile away and don't really need these things
pointed out. This paper seems to be a fairly superficial dressing of some
computer science ideas using category theory language. No mention of natural
transforms, which is the real meat of category theory (or at least, the first
layer of meat.) No mention of monads or adjunctions. And these things play a
big part in theoretical computer science (eg. Denotational Semantics.) I'm not
saying it's a bad paper, but it doesn't deserve this title, or at least, needs
much more justification for why it should have this title. Digging a bit
deeper I do see some limit diagrams, but still, this is fairly easy stuff to
see for the expert.

~~~
jimhefferon
Can you name a better source?

~~~
danharaj
For a professional category theorist interested in theoretical computer
science? The thing is, they could easily just dive into reading some papers on
the subject. The intuition and mechanical skill of category theory is easily
adapted to thinking about computation. Here are some relatively introductory
treatments of some parts of CS in category theory:

Introduction to Higher-Order Categorical Logic - Lambek and Scott

Categorical Logic from a categorical point of view - Mike Shulman [0]

Classical Lambda Calculus in Modern Dress - Martin Hyland [1]

Computer Science page on the nlab - great place to get lost [2]

[0]
[http://mikeshulman.github.io/catlog/catlog.pdf](http://mikeshulman.github.io/catlog/catlog.pdf)

[1] [https://arxiv.org/abs/1211.5762](https://arxiv.org/abs/1211.5762)

[2]
[https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/computer+science](https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/computer+science)

------
100ideas
I'm enjoying the Category Theory party this week on HN!

