It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

- All Categories 2.2K
- Applied Category Theory Course 355
- Applied Category Theory Seminar 4
- Exercises 149
- Discussion Groups 49
- How to Use MathJax 15
- Chat 480
- Azimuth Code Project 108
- News and Information 145
- Azimuth Blog 149
- Azimuth Forum 29
- Azimuth Project 189
- - Strategy 108
- - Conventions and Policies 21
- - Questions 43
- Azimuth Wiki 711
- - Latest Changes 701
- - - Action 14
- - - Biodiversity 8
- - - Books 2
- - - Carbon 9
- - - Computational methods 38
- - - Climate 53
- - - Earth science 23
- - - Ecology 43
- - - Energy 29
- - - Experiments 30
- - - Geoengineering 0
- - - Mathematical methods 69
- - - Meta 9
- - - Methodology 16
- - - Natural resources 7
- - - Oceans 4
- - - Organizations 34
- - - People 6
- - - Publishing 4
- - - Reports 3
- - - Software 21
- - - Statistical methods 2
- - - Sustainability 4
- - - Things to do 2
- - - Visualisation 1
- General 39

Options

I'm attending the 6th World Congress and School on Universal Logic. The first tutorial that I'm attending is being given by Henri Prade, A logical view of analogical reasoning based on analogical proportions. He's describing analogies using logical relationships, for example, comparing the set relationships A-B and C-D.

Analogies are of the form: "A is to B as C is to D".

I'm thinking that category theory is natural for modeling analogies. If in one category we have a morphism m:A->B, then the question is whether there is a functor F such that F(m):F(A)->F(B) where we call F(A)=C and F(B)=D. Sometimes the analogy/functor exists and sometimes not. Sometimes the analogy/functor can only be defined in one way and sometimes not. But it seems that analogies capture the commutative diagrams that we draw with functors and morphisms.

Perhaps you have thought about this or might be interested to discuss this.

hello world×