Invisible escreveu:
> I just finished reading this:
> 
> http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mb566/papers/tacc-hs09.pdf
> 
> It's a very cool paper and everything. Some very interesting ideas in 
> there. The only problem is... large chunks of it are utterly beyond my 
> comprehension. For example, there are several figures which consist 
> entirely of bizarre symbols, hitherto unknown. And the body text uses 
> several words in a way that clearly indicates that they are technical 
> terms rather than just plain English, but I have no idea what the 
> meaning of these terms might be.
> 
> The fact that all this notation and jargon is casually banded about 
> without the merest hint of an explanation suggests that it's the 
> standard "well-known" language for some subject area or other (as 
> opposed to something the authors came up with themselves). Does anybody 
> have any clue what that subject area might be? (And where I can go read 
> about it?)

you should be glad Simon is not talking about category theory. :P

The "weird" syntax seems to come from logic, propositional logic or 
logic of predicates, I don't remember.  Type theory is a branch of 
Logic, of course.

-- 
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9

Post a reply to this message