There is a nod here to Category Theory. I’m not yet sure what to make of it, but I have a desire to make a note-taking language that can essentially be the language of Category Theory. If ever achieved, then, in theory, anything that can be represented by a Category can be represented as Knowledge graph of notes.
Similarly to the Category Theory relationship, in the back of my head I think of this as a Functional language for writing.
There is a nod here to Category Theory. I’m not yet sure what to make of it, but I have a desire to make a note-taking language that can essentially be the language of Category Theory. If ever achieved, then, in theory, anything that can be represented by a Category can be represented as Knowledge graph of notes.
Similarly to the Category Theory relationship, in the back of my head I think of this as a Functional language for writing.
The edges here are specified for clarity, but really any note can be an edge. The arrow -> simply specifies that there is a way to get from the note at the start of the arrow to the note at the end of the arrow (plus some minimal syntactic sugar to allow for dropping an arrow when it’s implied).
This of course means that you can also have arrows from “edges” to “edges”, but not sure that most note repositories will find that useful. Nonetheless, another nod to Category Theory by adding a way to sort of create functors.
This of course means that you can also have arrows from “edges” to “edges”, but not sure that most note repositories will find that useful. Nonetheless, another nod to Category Theory by adding a way to sort of create functors.
There is almost certainly a better way to represent functions between notes in this Category Theory representation (is it just Haskell?), but I thought I’d put this attempt to the test for a while.
There is almost certainly a better way to represent functions between notes in this Category Theory representation (is it just Haskell?), but I thought I’d put this attempt to the test for a while.