reesesWeb

OK, I'll admit it. Sometimes, I am prone to reading mindless fiction. I'll read something hairy, and then have to ease up with a little trash.

The thing about that first book, "Basic Category Theory for Computer Scientists" is that it declares that it's written "Assuming a minimum of mathematical preparation..."

Now, that phrase can mean two things. 1) It assumes as little mathematical preparation as possible, and defines those terms and concepts that would not be common to anyone with a basic understanding of math; or 2) It assumes a certain base level of mathematical preparation of people who read it, without which the book will not make sense. I hate polar ambiguities. You can never add too much water to a nuclear reactor.

So, I buy the book without reading the excerpts on Amazon, and open it up on the bus. Yeargh. I'm up to page three, because every time they use a term from set theory, I have to run online if I can't derive its meaning from the context. For example, on page one, the person gives the definition of a category in terms of a formal list of elements, without actually defining either the concept of a category, or any of the terms used in the definitive manifest.

It's like defining objects (in the OOAD sense) "assuming a minimum of computing knowledge" in terms of:

Definition: An object O comprises:

1. a collection of slots;

2. operations exposing slots to varying degrees of visibility;

It's been ten years since I've been in school, and a lot of the symbology is gone. Books need more glossaries for us dummies!

Bookmark/Search this post with:

delicious | digg | reddit | technorati