[FRIAM] PM-2017-MethodologicalBehaviorismCausalChainsandCausalForks(1).pdf

[Marcus Daniels]

If you have a non-reaction, then I think you'd switch to a non-unique type or you'd explicitly duplicate.  Return (x,x) instead of x and then destructure the former.

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of ? glen
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 1:51 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] PM-2017-MethodologicalBehaviorismCausalChainsandCausalForks(1).pdf

OK. But let's say you only have 2 shops in town. And you have A. One shop will convert A into B or C. And the other shop will convert C into D, but not C. Intransitivity of conversion means that if you choose C you cannot ever get D.

I think I can see how linear logic allows for that. But I can't see how that relies on the symmetric monoidal category.



On February 10, 2021 12:50:06 PM PST, Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com> wrote:
>For chemical reactions, linear logic seems more realistic.  

--
glen ⛧

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/