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

- All Categories 2.4K
- Chat 505
- Study Groups 21
- Petri Nets 9
- Epidemiology 4
- Leaf Modeling 2
- Review Sections 9
- MIT 2020: Programming with Categories 51
- MIT 2020: Lectures 20
- MIT 2020: Exercises 25
- Baez ACT 2019: Online Course 339
- Baez ACT 2019: Lectures 79
- Baez ACT 2019: Exercises 149
- Baez ACT 2019: Chat 50
- UCR ACT Seminar 4
- General 75
- Azimuth Code Project 111
- Statistical methods 4
- Drafts 10
- Math Syntax Demos 15
- Wiki - Latest Changes 3
- Strategy 113
- Azimuth Project 1.1K
- - Spam 1
- News and Information 148
- Azimuth Blog 149
- - Conventions and Policies 21
- - Questions 43
- Azimuth Wiki 719

Options

On pages 205ff of "Seven Sketches", Brendan Fong und David Spivak show an example how a closed electric circuit with several valued elements and 4 ports can be considered as a morphism. They wrote: "We do this by marking the ports in the interface using functions from finite sets". Then they draw an one-element input set and a two-element output set and map these onto two arbitrary ports of the circuit. The question is, why they don't take a 256-element input set and a 7-element output set, and why they map the input set just to this port and not to another one (in "A compositional Framework for Reaction Network" John Baez and Blake Pollard give an example of a reaction Petri net that is a morphism from the empty set into itself).

In the example the circuit is an element of Hom[1,2] (1 und 2 mean the one-element or 2-element set respective), but it could might just as well be an element of Hom[256,7] or of Hom[0,0]. Is this indeed the intention?

hello world×