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 <[email protected]> On Behalf Of ? glen Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 1:51 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . 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/
