Thx for your thorough explanation! I don’t know much about these things, just thought about similarities in the algebraic properties, especially with regards to the zero-element: 0*1=0.
Re:Minimal Boolean Formulas
by wasabi991011 on Monday June 23, 2025 @10:23PM
(#44362339)
Do you really need to introduce category theory for that?
Seems like overkill, abstract algebra seems sufficient to categorize both boolean logic and integer operations as having the common structure of a ring.
Re:Minimal Boolean Formulas
by WorldMaker on Monday June 23, 2025 @11:46PM
(#44362688)
Of course you don't "need" to introduce category theory for that, which is why I saved it for fun at the end. I just think it is neat. It's also one of those bridges to "category theory is simpler than it sounds", which is also why I disagree with it being "overkill" in general in part because that keeps category theory in the "too complex for real needs" box, which I think is the wrong box. Which, case in point:
> […] abstract algebra seems sufficient to categorize both boolean logic and integer operations as having the common structure of a ring.
I don't think Ring Theory is any easier than Category Theory to learn/teach, I rather think that Category Theory is a subset of some of best parts of abstract algebra, especially Group Theory, boiled down to the sufficient parts to describe (among other things) practical function composition tools for computing.
> digital representation of booleans implies that integer multiplication still applies
Yes. Multiplication of unsigned 1-bit integers is the same function as boolean AND.
Re:Minimal Boolean Formulas
by AlotOfReading on Tuesday June 24, 2025 @12:38AM
(#44362901)
I would normally interpret "Boolean multiplication" as multiplication over GF(2), where + would be XOR. This notation is fairly common when discussing things like cryptography or CRCs.
Re:Minimal Boolean Formulas
by Ar-Curunir on Tuesday June 24, 2025 @04:12AM
(#44363909)
[delayed]
It's somewhat common in set notations to use * and + for set union and set intersection for very similar reasons. Some programming languages even use that in their type language (a union of two types is A * B and an intersection is A + B).
Interestingly, this is why Category Theory in part exists to describe the similarities between operators in mathematics such as how * and ∧ contrast/are similar. Category Theory gets a bad rap for being the origin of monads and fun phrases like "monads are a monoid in the category of endofunctors", but it also answers a few fun questions like why are * and ∧ so similar? (They are similar functions that operate in different "categories".) Admittedly that's a very rough, lay gloss on it, but it's still an interesting perspective on what people talk about when they talk about Category Theory.