She’s one of the clearest explainers in category theory I know of. I’ll have to come back to this to watch more. I’m right at the level where I can sort of get an idea about Lawvere theories from a video like this. They’re very related to some questions I’ve had.
Can anyone explain Dr. Cheng's "philosophical aside" about string diagrams @29:37? How does naturality seemingly disappear? To my mind, naturality in graphical calculi is almost rendered *more* clearly via intuitive, geometric moves (e.g., sliding beads on a necklace in the graphical proof for the cyclicity of trace)... Perhaps she just means that she'd like coherence conditions to appear *equationally*?
She’s one of the clearest explainers in category theory I know of. I’ll have to come back to this to watch more. I’m right at the level where I can sort of get an idea about Lawvere theories from a video like this. They’re very related to some questions I’ve had.
S is Times and T is Sum. That is an unfortunate abbreviation.
Can anyone explain Dr. Cheng's "philosophical aside" about string diagrams @29:37? How does naturality seemingly disappear? To my mind, naturality in graphical calculi is almost rendered *more* clearly via intuitive, geometric moves (e.g., sliding beads on a necklace in the graphical proof for the cyclicity of trace)... Perhaps she just means that she'd like coherence conditions to appear *equationally*?
I'd go ahead and fix something. s/free monad/free monoid/ s/twoary/binary/, s/threeary/ternary/, s/fourary/quaternary/.