Read on Twitter
Category theory feels subtractive, as opposed to additive. These days, there's more papers than ever and it seems like our main issue isn't producing new research, but understanding how new results interact with the immense body of already existing ones. 1/5
In my work, I feel like my primary goal isn't to add more complexity, but to reduce it by saying "hey I took half of the stuff out of your paper and it still works". Or "hey folks, see these three completely distinct papers? Actually, there's just one idea behind them all". 2/5
Of course, reality is more nuanced than that. But, even though I do want to produce new results _eventually_ (and luckily we now have some), I feel like the question "What new contributions have you made?" is often the wrong question to ask. 3/5
It feels like there's a larger and larger need to manage the complexity of our growing body of scientific work, and to make it simpler, more distilled and more accessible to future generations. 4/5
The strategy of producing new research without showing how it integrates with everybody else's doesn't seem to be a viable one in the long term. Category theory feels like a force for good in that regard. 5/5
God I went to tweet "category theory is subtractive, not additive" and then thought "guess I should explain what I mean"
