On Jan 23, 1:21 pm, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> On 2008-01-22, in comp.lang.functional, Bruce C. Miller wrote:
>
> > The arrows here can be interpreted (for example) as lambda calculus
> > "derives from" or "is based upon" category theory in some (possibly
> > partial) sense. How accurate is this to reality? Should set theory be
> > in there somewhere? I believe type theory derives from naive set
> > theory, but i believe that set theory is a subset of category theory.
>
> What sort of "derivation" do you have in mind? As far as historical
reality
> goes your "big picture" is pretty inaccurate. In addition to set theory,
> you'll probably want to include proof theory and constructivism in your
> diagram.
I probably should have mentioned this, but I was only including things
that were worth studying from a programming language perspective,
ignoring subjects that wouldn't shed much insight into PLT.
I figured it was at least a bit off, which is why I posted my best
guess at the time as a question. I'd be interested to see what the
real overall structure of how things fit together.
|
