On 9/25/07, Seth Gordon wrote:

Are Benjamin C. Pierce's _Types and Programming Languages_ and/or _Basic Category Theory for Computer Scientists_ suitable for self-study?

(Do they have problem sets that can be checked by either looking up answers in The Back of the Book, or by trying to compile/run some code that the student writes?)

Graduate-level textbooks don't have answers in the back of the book, as a rule. In TAPL, some of the questions involve writing code, but others don't. If you're approaching this book, you ought to be at a point where you can check your own sanity. Better yet, find a study partner to discuss the problems with! I haven't gotten past the "watch it collect dust while sitting on my coffee table" point with the category theory book, but I can tell you that none of the problems in that one involve writing code. Cheers, Tim -- Tim Chevalier * catamorphism.org * Often in error, never in doubt "Ninety-nine percent of everything that is done in the world, good and bad, is done to pay a mortgage. The world would be a much better place if everyone rented." -- Christopher Buckley

On Tue, 25 Sep 2007, Seth Gordon wrote:

Are Benjamin C. Pierce's _Types and Programming Languages_ and/or _Basic Category Theory for Computer Scientists_ suitable for self-study?

Basic Category Theory depends on your mindset somewhat. TaPL is great though, and frequently recommended. The follow-up is also good.

(Do they have problem sets that can be checked by either looking up answers in The Back of the Book, or by trying to compile/run some code that the student writes?)

TaPL does. -- flippa@flippac.org A problem that's all in your head is still a problem. Brain damage is but one form of mind damage.

The absolute easiest, clearest, and most entertaining book on Category Theory (which I highly recommend) is: Conceptual Mathematics: A First Introduction to Categories (Paperback) by F. William Lawvere and Stephen Hoel Schanuel, $25 It literally reads like a series of college lectures (called Article), each followed by study sections (called Sessions), complete with fake dialog with fake students asking the questions that are probably on your mind while reading the Articles. It has a tone so conversational that working mathematicians will run screaming, but I have found it highly enlightening. With hardly a proff in sight, this is definitely the starter book par excellence of Category Theory. Here is a random excerpt on page 25, a dialog between Chad and the Professor: PROFESSOR: Is this correct? Not quite, because we are supposed to draw two maps, and the thing draw for h . g is not a map; one of the points of the domain of h . g has been left without an assigned output. This deficiency won't matter for the next step, because that information is going to get lost anyhow, but it belongs in this step and it is incorrect to omit it. Chad's trouble was that in drawing h . g, he notices that the last arrow would be irrelevant to the composite (h . g) . f, so he left it out. CHAD: It seems the principle is like in multiplication, where the order in which you do things doesn't matter; you get the same answer. PROFESSOR: I am glad you mention order. Let me give you an example... I defy you to be scared by this book. There are an obscene amount of diagrams illustrating the points as well, along with numerous (and redundant) exercises to make sure you are getting it all. Dan Weston Seth Gordon wrote:

Are Benjamin C. Pierce's _Types and Programming Languages_ and/or _Basic Category Theory for Computer Scientists_ suitable for self-study?

(Do they have problem sets that can be checked by either looking up answers in The Back of the Book, or by trying to compile/run some code that the student writes?)

FWIW, my formal math education--well, all the formal math education that I can remember at this point--stopped at freshman calculus plus one semester of statistics. _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe