1
$\begingroup$

This question and prose contained in Experiments are monads (I think), but are they comonads too? admittedly sounds like word salad to me, but unlike other theory questions over my head this doesn't even sound like a physics question to me.

It would be nice if a question living out on the edge at least gives some background with definitions making contact with mainstream physics, then I feel we could all learn something from it.

The thought that convinced me to ask, is maybe this sounds like world salad to the experts as well, and we have an emperor's clothes situation here. Assuming good faith that there is useful physics content here, I hope we can at least be open and honest enough that if most of the experts don't understand that someone should speak up and ask for clarification. What is being asked and how does this make contact with mainstream physics?

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ So, what exactly are you asking here? Are you asking about the content of that specific question, or are you asking more generally about theory questions (as implied by your title)? I think it'd be better if you focus on one direction or the other, though either would be okay. (I do think a discussion of this specific-question would be useful.) $\endgroup$ – David Z Oct 7 '17 at 22:47
  • $\begingroup$ @DavidZ Decided to focus on the specific question. I merely changed the title and tags, so please edit if it needs more. $\endgroup$ – PPenguin Oct 7 '17 at 23:12
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Not being familiar with the mathematical constructs (monads and comonads) mentioned much less their application to physics I didn't feel I was in a strong position to judge the question. It really needs to be looked at by some of are members who are more expert in abstract maths, because we can't really know how much physics there is in their until people familiar with the techniques mentioned weigh in. $\endgroup$ – dmckee Oct 8 '17 at 1:27
4
$\begingroup$

Speaking in general, categorification of physics and category theory in physics are on-topic. See also this related meta post. The quality and fate of this type of questions should be decided (in the same way as any other question) via user up/down votes. There is no need to regulate this topic with a separate policy rule.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I guess the problem with the linked thread is that the language of that field is so unfamiliar to most users of this site that very few people are able to distinguish valid questions from word salad or (more worryingly) complete crackpots pushing way-off-mainstream personal theories, which makes it harder to turn up-/down-votes into a meaningful signal. $\endgroup$ – Emilio Pisanty Oct 9 '17 at 10:41
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Downvoting as unclear (preferably leaving a comment explaining why) is a justified/legitimate/acceptable action. It encourages OP to improve his post. It is OP's responsibility to communicate clearly and convincingly, e.g. by adding context and references. $\endgroup$ – Qmechanic Oct 9 '17 at 11:11
  • $\begingroup$ Yeah, I'll buy that mechanism. $\endgroup$ – Emilio Pisanty Oct 9 '17 at 11:56
  • $\begingroup$ I am actually surprised this question was not tagged for a migration to math or computer science, where many people would be fluent in category theory. $\endgroup$ – user154997 Oct 11 '17 at 10:29

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .