 Category Theory for the working computer scientist
started 3/19/2001; 6:12:02 AM - last post 10/15/2003; 1:48:11 AM
|
|
andrew cooke - Category Theory for the working computer scientist 
3/19/2001; 6:12:02 AM (reads: 2620, responses: 9)
|
|
| Category Theory for the working computer scientist |
|
[Warning - I can't actually test the download, as ftp doesn't work with my firewall; it's the first link on this page]
This is just one of the links at Frank Atanassow's page of PL theory texts (we've covered a lot of the others already - I'm not sure which...).
Posted to theory by andrew cooke on 3/19/01; 6:12:50 AM
|
|
|
|
andrew cooke - Re: Category Theory for the working computer scientist
3/19/2001; 6:14:57 AM (reads: 1675, responses: 0)
|
|
|
I asked Frank to post a link here each time he updates that page but he declined :-(
|
|
Frank Atanassow - Re: Category Theory for the working computer scientist
3/19/2001; 1:26:35 PM (reads: 1665, responses: 0)
|
|
|
I declined becoming an editor, but I will let you know if there are any new links.
|
|
Ehud Lamm - Re: Category Theory for the working computer scientist
3/19/2001; 11:20:45 PM (reads: 1660, responses: 0)
|
|
|
Thanks, Frank. No on has to become an editor, if he doesn't want to.
|
|
andrew cooke - Re: Category Theory for the working computer scientist
3/20/2001; 12:51:48 AM (reads: 1661, responses: 1)
|
|
|
I was going to send this in an email, but I think the second point is worth making publicly...
First, apologies if I misrepresented your reply or you thought I was criticising you personally. No criticism was intended at all.
Second, maybe the whole "editor" business sounds too formal. All that being an "editor" involves is getting write access to a few pages. There's no pressure to post regularly, no tracking of which editors post and which don't, no expiry if you don't post etc etc. AFAIK the idea is simply to place a small hurdle so stop vandals posting junk directly to (for example) the front page.
Maybe "write access" would be better than "editor"?
|
|
Ehud Lamm - Re: Category Theory for the working computer scientist
3/20/2001; 1:23:13 AM (reads: 1751, responses: 0)
|
|
|
I quite agree. I decided to keep this seperate, but since you raised it. Two things to keep in mind: (a) you can post when you want to. This is not a formal responsibility. and (b) I don't think any one is going to consdier you responsible for all the content here, simply because you are marked (internally, no one sees it) as a contributing editor.
I wan more contributors for two reasons. One is, of course, to keep the content flowing. The other reason is that I want this to be a community site, representing different views, and approaches.
|
|
Frank Atanassow - Re: Category Theory for the working computer scientist
3/23/2001; 4:48:24 AM (reads: 1624, responses: 0)
|
|
|
I've added a few more links to my page: the Peyton Jones-Lester text on implementing functional languages, a course on universal algebra, and non-reference work by Chaitin on (in)computability.
|
|
Frank Atanassow - Re: Category Theory for the working computer scientist
3/26/2001; 5:48:09 AM (reads: 1783, responses: 0)
|
|
|
I've added many more links to the page, after getting submissions from people on the TYPES forum. In addition to several useful lecture notes, including Gordon Plotkin's classic Pisa notes on domain theory, there is a book by Nordstrom, et al. on Martin-Lof type theory, and Hennessey's book, Semantics of Programming Languages.
|
|
Frank Atanassow - Re: Category Theory for the working computer scientist
4/3/2001; 4:32:40 AM (reads: 1580, responses: 0)
|
|
|
Yet more links were added to my page. Mostly lecture notes on proofs, automated deduction, and specification and verification. Also added Cardelli and Wegner's introduction to type systems.
|
|
Ehud Lamm - Re: Category Theory for the working computer scientist
10/15/2003; 1:48:11 AM (reads: 238, responses: 0)
|
|
|
|
|
|