Jason (jcreed) wrote,

I was trying to get research done all today but didn't wind up doing a tremendous lot. I think I understand explicit substitutions a bit better now after reading over the 1991 paper again. It's probably not the best way to think of it, but I got some milage out of considering
the mapping
1 --> first projection
^ --> second projection
cons --> pairing
lambda --> lambda
context cons --> product
id --> id
composition --> composition
substitution --> composition
from the lambda-sigma calculus to cartesian closed categories.

Watched one more ep of ICT and then saw "Monsters, Inc." in McConomy.
I really like how these "family" computer-animated movies really
effectively achieve a sense of humor that doesn't depend much on
sex or non-slapstick violence. Lots of little pop-culture references,
also: for a fraction of a second, one of the monsters at the end
has a hammer and a watermelon. I didn't even get that until I remembered
the scene later that night.

  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 1 comment