Give me one good reason why do do you prefer being a math crawling rat instead of being CATEGORY-GOD looking from everything above.
Do you really think that studying some pedantic fake schemes is a way?
Why do you prefer to be beta-chicken pecking some tiny seeds, instead of looking from everything from above, and moving in insanely fast pace, like an eagle?
Because you have some stupid chicken coop (university) to live inside?
That's cringe, in the history of world the most important discoveries were always done by lone wolves - not by fricking ants - outside of these official institutions, and that being said, the academia becoming increasingly more cringy is showing my point even more.
A monad is a monoid in the category of endofunctors, what's the problem?
A monad is a symbol that you can move around inside your lambda term, but you can’t get rid of it
because it’s not 2008 anymore and the fad is over
So what is fashionable now?
I don’t know about “fashionable”, but the equivalent troony fad seems to be Rustlang
Category theory is cool and hopefully I'll learn more (I'm sure I will one day), but for the time being, I'm really interested in graphs, probability, game theory, linear algebra, optimization and other tools that can be used to understand social and biological systems, and other complex systems that are poorly understood.
It’s the chaos theory of recent years. Maybe one day it will mean something besides more terminology and symbols for the same things, but it’s basically gay
Show me something new that category theory has done which has then been used to get a meaningful specific mathematical result.
It is my understanding that all it does is take mathematical results which were achieved by "beta-chicken pecking" at specific results and abstracts all of the specifics away and pretends like it achieved something by creating a one-size-fits-all tool whose only use case is the specific result it was derived from.
A category theorist's heuristic is to wait until somebody smart does something meaningful then do some brain-dead abstraction process and smugly pretend like you obtained some deeper knowledge.
As math becomes more and more complex (by ai, for instance), soon we will not be able to understand math on local level, with all these mindnumbing details, we will be only able to grasp math on meta level. And are there any better alternatives to getting meta-understaning than by category theory?
Grothendieck was looking at math at global level and he was getting results.
Category theory nowadays is fundamental to proof assistants like lean, and so if not directly, it leads to more and more new results. I especially believe that when we will combine AI with lean it will lead to completly groundbreaking results. And since category theory is fundamental to lean and maybe soon it will give us some understanding of ai (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rie-9AEhYdY), then the category theory is literally the biggest hope to mathematics.
>A category theorist's heuristic is to wait until somebody smart does something meaningful then do some brain-dead abstraction process and smugly pretend like you obtained some deeper knowledge.
kek that's most pure math
yeah there's no purely categorical theorem. so far it's just re-writting bourbakian theorems in a new framework
If there's a chicken coop the its dual is the chicken op.
what about a homosexual coop?
Go on, what's it saying?
It's literally me and I am not sure if I like it.
not the pic anon, but im sure you'll manage to be more rounded with respect to mathematical fields, if i where you it set myself a slow start of 6 to 10 non-category theory problems a day, 3 days a week, weekend's off for 3 or 4 months, how does that sound to you?, im must warn you that is better to start slowly to shake the rust off, best wishes
I feel like I feel better in category theory rabbit hole, maybe someday I will crawl out from it, to the normie land of normie mathematics as a magician.
>>I feel like I feel better in category theory rabbit hole,
same, it's comfy and i'm glad it's considered real maths, unlike statistics