News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Category Theory, Syntactically (2016) by stillkicking on Thursday April 27, 2017 @06:28AM (#14210460)
Introduction to Cake Making

A cake is a baked good containing one or more edible substances, created by a baker. Cakes are made in a kitchen, using appliances, implements and utensils. An appliance is a powered mechanical device used to augment the baker's abilities, different from an implement and a utensil. Implements and utensils are unpowered tools used by hand to produce batter from ingredients. A batter is a mixture produced in stages, consisting of a base starch, proteins and flavoring agents.

For a concrete example of a cake, consider a cake containing one or more fruits. The fruit may be uniformly distributed among the cake's contents or clustered in toppings. This produces the cake's characteristic flavor and color, though color may also result from artificial coloring agents.

Through prolongued exposure to heat, we can transform batter into a cake. Molds may be used for this. Any bowls, spoons or whisks used in the process may contain residual batter suitable for direct consumption. [1]

In some ways I've stopped just when things were about to get good, but now you should have a solid understanding of the fundamentals.

[1] Licking is actually quite natural in this context.

Re:Category Theory, Syntactically (2016) by TeMPOraL on Thursday April 27, 2017 @12:24PM (#14212723)
This is Actually Good, and I'd love more stuff written that way!

No, seriously. Just look what this example does - it recursively provides a short description for each of the important concepts in the process of baking cakes. After reading this, I now feel I have a decent map of the topic - both what the things / processes involve and what they don't involve. I've also been introduced to domain terminology that will help me understand other sources.

--

As for original question, why definitions - I believe it's good to have precise definitions next to casual explanations of the same things, just so that the reader can quickly connect the casually discussed aspect with the precise definition, and answer some of their own questions (which authors can't predict) through thinking.

Re:Category Theory, Syntactically (2016) by stillkicking on Saturday April 29, 2017 @10:48PM (#14229940)
No it's terrible, and the fact that you don't notice is exactly the problem. See also: monads. If you understand the basic process of what's going on (preparing food) and what it's meant to do (produce a delicious treat), formalizing your understanding in this way feels like concise and clear insight. If you don't yet know anything, it will be meaningless word salad where each 'answer' produces a multitude more questions.

Note e.g. that I never once cited an actual cake, I merely provided an example of a category of cakes. This too is a problem with mathematics, so in love with their abstractions, they no longer notice the lack of the concrete.

Re:Category Theory, Syntactically (2016) by justifier on Thursday April 27, 2017 @06:56PM (#14215531)
Re:Category Theory, Syntactically (2016) by TuringTest on Thursday April 27, 2017 @06:42AM (#14210506)
This would actually be a very good introduction for a race of alien visitors who'd never heard of cakes, baking, or kitchens.
Re:Category Theory, Syntactically (2016) by shmageggy on Thursday April 27, 2017 @09:28AM (#14211278)
No it wouldn't for the same reason the article isn't a good introduction -- it relies on concepts that a naive reader doesn't understand. In your example the aliens are unfamiliar with kitchens, but the text mentions kitchens without ​any explanation. Similarly the article mentions and uses "sort" without any explanation. It seemed to be a fundamental concept but without any idea what a sort was I gave up. Every article on category theory does this.
Re:Category Theory, Syntactically (2016) by MichaelBurge on Thursday April 27, 2017 @01:16PM (#14213134)
There are 2 sentences between the first use of 'sort' and its explanation, which is that they are symbols with no interpretation. It looks like he defines function symbol before sort, presumably because function symbols are more important than sorts.
Re:Category Theory, Syntactically (2016) by jjaredsimpson on Thursday April 27, 2017 @11:41AM (#14212314)
This isn't true.

>Sorts and function symbols are just symbols. Something is a sort if it is in the collection of sorts. Nothing else is required.

If you gave up before reading this, then you didn't even read the 4th paragraph.

Re:Category Theory, Syntactically (2016) by bbcbasic on Thursday April 27, 2017 @06:51AM (#14210537)
If they are Vulcans or androids.
Re:Category Theory, Syntactically (2016) by Xophmeister on Thursday April 27, 2017 @07:04AM (#14210592)
More recipe books should be written by mathematicians ;)
Re:Category Theory, Syntactically (2016) by 1001101 on Thursday April 27, 2017 @09:31AM (#14211298)
Euginia Cheng, a category theorist, has written Cakes, Custard and Category Theory: Easy Recipes for Understanding Complex Maths, and How to Bake Pi: An Edible Exploration of the Mathematics of Mathematics.
Re:Category Theory, Syntactically (2016) by seanmcdirmid on Thursday April 27, 2017 @09:57AM (#14211458)
Re:Category Theory, Syntactically (2016) by andrzejsz on Thursday April 27, 2017 @02:57PM (#14213860)
This first title disappeared in favor of the second that is "How to bake Pi" I guess pure marketing move
Re:Category Theory, Syntactically (2016) by danidiaz on Thursday April 27, 2017 @05:03PM (#14214688)
Indeed, like "Burritos for the Hungry Mathematician" http://emorehouse.web.wesleyan.edu/silliness/burrito_monads....
Re:Category Theory, Syntactically (2016) by gumby on Thursday April 27, 2017 @11:48AM (#14212373)
After the proof that one may substitute slivered almonds for chopped crystalized fruit, I have a lemma that says one may substitute slivered almonds for a subset of the chopped crystalized fruit.
Re:Category Theory, Syntactically (2016) by vanderZwan on Thursday April 27, 2017 @11:14AM (#14212095)
So basically, the Guy Steele approach to cooking

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ahvzDzKdB0

Re:Category Theory, Syntactically (2016) by wfisher on Sunday April 30, 2017 @10:03AM (#14231531)
Amazing. I couldn't agree more this is obviously a useless way to learn baking at first.
Re:Category Theory, Syntactically (2016) by diyseguy on Thursday April 27, 2017 @11:48AM (#14212370)
har! please do keep going