Newest at the top
| 2024-11-05 12:34:11 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@77.242.116.146) merijn |
| 2024-11-05 12:33:04 +0100 | ash3en1 | ash3en |
| 2024-11-05 12:33:04 +0100 | ash3en | (~Thunderbi@146.70.124.222) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) |
| 2024-11-05 12:31:28 +0100 | ash3en1 | (~Thunderbi@2a03:7846:b6eb:101:93ac:a90a:da67:f207) ash3en |
| 2024-11-05 12:27:45 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@77.242.116.146) (Ping timeout: 248 seconds) |
| 2024-11-05 12:25:54 +0100 | longlongdouble | (~longlongd@117.234.41.81) |
| 2024-11-05 12:22:30 +0100 | longlongdouble | (~longlongd@117.234.189.117) (Ping timeout: 244 seconds) |
| 2024-11-05 12:21:55 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@77.242.116.146) merijn |
| 2024-11-05 12:20:59 +0100 | lxsameer | (~lxsameer@Serene/lxsameer) (Ping timeout: 255 seconds) |
| 2024-11-05 12:20:52 +0100 | ash3en | (~Thunderbi@146.70.124.222) ash3en |
| 2024-11-05 12:20:31 +0100 | ash3en | (~Thunderbi@146.70.124.222) (Client Quit) |
| 2024-11-05 12:19:42 +0100 | euleritian | (~euleritia@ip4d16fc38.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de) |
| 2024-11-05 12:19:40 +0100 | ash3en1 | ash3en |
| 2024-11-05 12:19:26 +0100 | euleritian | (~euleritia@dynamic-176-006-146-045.176.6.pool.telefonica.de) (Read error: Connection reset by peer) |
| 2024-11-05 12:19:09 +0100 | euleritian | (~euleritia@dynamic-176-006-146-045.176.6.pool.telefonica.de) |
| 2024-11-05 12:19:01 +0100 | euleritian | (~euleritia@ip4d16fc38.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de) (Read error: Connection reset by peer) |
| 2024-11-05 12:18:47 +0100 | emfrom | (~emfrom@37.171.102.197) (Remote host closed the connection) |
| 2024-11-05 12:17:23 +0100 | ash3en1 | (~Thunderbi@146.70.124.222) ash3en |
| 2024-11-05 12:17:20 +0100 | ash3en | (~Thunderbi@2a03:7846:b6eb:101:93ac:a90a:da67:f207) (Ping timeout: 244 seconds) |
| 2024-11-05 12:15:26 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <hellwolf> I recalled a talk from "David Spivak: Categorical Databases". I appreciate people's relentless searches of composition, especially from mathematicians (Bartosz Milewski, et. al.) ... but sometimes someone just gotta find a concrete use case that others can understand and apply the insights. |
| 2024-11-05 12:14:44 +0100 | <ncf> | Inst: as long as you can come up with a notion of homomorphism between instances of different schemas, sure ("there are none" is a valid answer) |
| 2024-11-05 12:14:40 +0100 | <probie> | Inst: If it's not a normal relational database, then sum types may be easily supported :p. If you want to model it in a relational database and don't want to risk being two variants at once, you can have n columns, each being a nullable foreign key to that variant's table, and a constraint that exactly one of those columns is not null |
| 2024-11-05 12:14:30 +0100 | supercode | (~supercode@user/supercode) (Quit: Client closed) |
| 2024-11-05 12:11:59 +0100 | <ncf> | this is the most programmer-brained introduction to presheaves i have ever seen |
| 2024-11-05 12:11:38 +0100 | xff0x | (~xff0x@2405:6580:b080:900:fc69:912f:320c:e811) |
| 2024-11-05 12:11:11 +0100 | tomsmeding | sneaks off |
| 2024-11-05 12:11:06 +0100 | tomsmeding | has no clue what's going on on that page |
| 2024-11-05 12:10:43 +0100 | <Inst> | as in, can a database table be in one of two different schemas? |
| 2024-11-05 12:10:31 +0100 | <Inst> | wait, do database tables support sum types? |
| 2024-11-05 12:10:08 +0100 | tomsmeding | is out of comfort zone |
| 2024-11-05 12:09:36 +0100 | <kuribas> | An ORM for example. |
| 2024-11-05 12:08:42 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | how on Earth does an ADT correspond to a database table? :p |
| 2024-11-05 12:08:28 +0100 | <kuribas> | So I could transform an ADT to a database table, using a functor. |
| 2024-11-05 12:08:11 +0100 | <kuribas> | I wonder if that works for ADTs too. |
| 2024-11-05 12:08:04 +0100 | <kuribas> | tomsmeding: I am reading the "databases as categories" article: https://math.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Applied_Mathematics/Seven_Sketches_in_Compositionality%3A_…(Fong_and_Spivak)/03%3A_Databases-_Categories_functors_and_(co)limits/3.03%3A_Functors_natural_transformations_and_databases |
| 2024-11-05 12:07:59 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | if so, then perhaps the concept of an F-algebra is what you are looking for |
| 2024-11-05 12:07:01 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@77.242.116.146) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) |
| 2024-11-05 12:06:53 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | kuribas: are you trying to encapsulate some kind of structure in a function from one ADT to another, more than there is in "any function"? |
| 2024-11-05 12:06:10 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | an ADT would be one object in that category |
| 2024-11-05 12:05:58 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | it works because the identity function is a thing at each type (i.e. on each object), and functions compose |
| 2024-11-05 12:05:35 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | the "standard" example of a category in the context of FP is: objects are types, arrows (morphisms) are functions |
| 2024-11-05 12:05:35 +0100 | <ncf> | ?? |
| 2024-11-05 12:05:03 +0100 | <kuribas> | Objects are the types? |
| 2024-11-05 12:04:53 +0100 | <kuribas> | tomsmeding: Arrows are the products and sums I suppose? |
| 2024-11-05 12:03:15 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | kuribas: if it's a category, then what are its objects and its arrows? |
| 2024-11-05 12:03:14 +0100 | harveypwca | (~harveypwc@2601:246:d080:b40:1889:d9bf:2dd8:b288) HarveyPwca |
| 2024-11-05 11:56:16 +0100 | supercode | (~supercode@user/supercode) supercode |
| 2024-11-05 11:54:00 +0100 | <kuribas> | Then mapping an ADT into another one would be a functor? |
| 2024-11-05 11:53:53 +0100 | <kuribas> | Is an ADT a category? |
| 2024-11-05 11:53:16 +0100 | kuribas | (~user@ip-188-118-57-242.reverse.destiny.be) kuribas |