Chapter 13 Sameness

Raw Chocolate Cookies

EC makes a 'cookie' with raw chocolate. There is no cooking in the recipe.
But the result serves the same purpose as cookies in her life - snack, coffee
accompaniment etc.

One of CT's aims to make precise the subtle differences of (different definitons
of) 'sameness'.

Online Shopping - Better And Worse Substitutions

As discussed before equality (_ == identity) is too stringent.

However there are things that are more or less the same (substitutable?) in various
contexts.
CT highlights the relationships between objects, so it allows us to look for more
subtle notions of 'sameness' in different contexts. This is the heart of
mathematics.

Solving equations is about multiple steps of replacing a thing with something that
is 'the same', till you have something useful at the end of the process.

Equations give us multiple way of understanding the same thing.

Consider the equation

5 + (5 + 3) = (5 + 5) + 3
The equals sign does not say that what is on each side is precisely identical.
It just means that if you follow a process with what's on the left, you end up with
something that results if you follow the same process on the right. The right side
is easier for most people because you get 10 in one step, which makes subsequent
calculation easier. (_ In matrix algebra, different expressions that are equal have
different computational characteristics)

the only 'truly equal' equations have the exact same 'thing' on both sides but
these are useless in practice.

1 = 1
5 + 4 = 5 + 4

(KEY) the only useful equations are those that tell us that two different ways of
doing something are "somehow the same"

In CT we observe that when we say (in mathematics) that things are 'equal' we are
saying that they are 'somehow the same' - we are using a 'white lie' . This
doesn't matter till we get into situations where there are many white lies piled on
top of each other, and you need to keep track (_ or, more generally the 'white lie-
ness of some of the elements in the pile begin to have an effect on what you are
trying to do). Which is why categories are not studied (mostly) in u/g early
masters programs (because till then 'white lies' don't interfere with your progress
in learning mathematics)

some notions of sameness that are not precisely 'equality'. (but they all seem to
be equi*valent* in the sense of reflexivity + symmetry + transitivity)

1. similar triangles - same angles, different side lengths

 2. topological sameness - one things can be 'squashed into another' - a
doughnut and a coffee cup.
3. symmetries of an equilateral triangle and permutations of the numbers 1,2,3
4. various versions of the Brattenberg cake (_ not very clear, except it has
something to do with groups)

(KEY) sometimes in CT, the process goes the other way. We (KEY) first decide what
we *want* to count as 'the same' then look for a context (or 'world') in which that
is true.

Example: in the real world, coffee cups and doughnuts are *not* 'the same'. Iow,
mathematicians have *built* a context (_ topological spaces?) in which they are
'the same'.

The *theory* behind building these more subtle contexts is an important piece of
mathematics in its own right, which is one of the more current research areas in
the field.

summary : key idea == thing x 'somewhat equal to' y, while not being exactly the
same thing, *in context z* is very useful.

context is crucial, since when computers try to judge things to be 'the same' as
others on behalf of human beings. e.g in onlines hopping.

e.g: companies giving toilet brushes when tooth brushes were out of stock. (which a
shopper can decline when they arrive). The computer/algorithm thought they were
substitutes for each other because 'they are both brushes' instead of using their
*roles* uses.

Nelson's Message- Sacrificing Some Sameness For The

Greater Good

Nelson's message was changed and one word substituted for another because it could
be deployed with a single flag. The result was sufficiently 'the same', but in the
context of flags needed for signalling, much simpler with the substituted word.

In mathematics, we often use things that 'are more or less the same in a given
contex't. We do this in order to replace one object with another, either in
calculations, or in our thinking, where the second object is 'the same' as the
first, but is more convenient in some aspect.

Example: In topology, an inifinitely large piece of paper is 'the same' (same

number of holes) as a dot. Sometimes a dot is the 'right' object because it is very
simple. Sometimes an infinite paper is better because it can be drawn upon. You can
'stick' papers together to form other shapes, can't do that with infinitely small
dots, because sticking together two such dots gives another dot.

The notion of sameness we use here is 'play dough sameness' == 'homotopy

equivalence'
So in topology a plane is homotopy equivalent to a dot.
In topology building up spaces by sticking together smaller ones is called 'taking
colimits'.

So the mathematicaly stumbling block we have here is 'taking colimits is not

homotopically equivalant' (_ == sticking together things on either side of a
'homotopical ==' results in things that are *not* homotopically equivalent. So the
results of sticking together sheets of paper are not 'playdough equivalent' to the
results of sticking together dots. e.g you can stick together two sheets of paper
to form a cylinder which has one hole, but sticking together the homequiv dots give
another dot (with zero holes)

Chocolate Cake: When Small Differences Add Up To Big Ones

By Mistake

giving a child a series of chocolate chips that differ from their predecessors by
1g. For the child, they are all 'the same' but do it enough times and the child
sees a difference (at 100g vs 50 g, say)

so we a ==b , b == c, .... y == z and then somehow a NOT == z. This is not

acceptable in CT. in CT if a --> b b --> a, when the arrow means, in some context '
if we can get from A to B, we can get back from B to A' *only then* is A 'the same
as' B.

(HtBPi)

In CT, we think about processes (arrows) as 'ways of moving from A to B. Things

count as "more or less the same" only if we can reverse the process of getting from
A to B (represented as an arrow). If you can go only one way and not get back it
doesn't count (for the purposes of 'sameness')

Frozen Egg - Processes That Are Nearly Reversible

Freezing water is an entirely reversible process, other things (like eggs) are only
somewhat 'freeze reversible'.
In mathematics, instead of saying something in 'reversible' we say it is
'invertible'. In Category theory, 'process reversal' == 'invertible'

3 -- + 2 --> 5
and then the reverse process is 5 -- (-2) --> 3

but consider squaring

3 -- ( ^2) --> 9
but 9 -- (^1/2) --> -3 or +3

so squaring is not an invertible process in that if you start from the result and
reverse the process you might end up somewhere else from where you began.

(HtBPi)
The forward and reverse processes when applied in succession should get us back to
the same point.

so
3 -- +2 --> 5 -- -2 --> 3

In mathematics we are interested in more than just getting back to the same place.
We want to know if the *process of* going there and back is the same as the
*process of* not going there in the first place. This does not make senes with
numbers, but manifests when we study things more delicate (?) than numbers. (_ an
example would be nice. but meanwhile if we look at traveling to x and back to the
starting point in terms of 'location' the end result is the same as not having
started at all, but in terms of spend of fuel and time, there is a difference
between the two )

Custard - When Combining Things In A Different Order Makes A Difference

- not very clear but

mixing the ingredients (leaves of a tree) for custard (root of the tree) is shown
as a tree which shows the combination sequence.

here leaves = eggyolk, sugar, milk

the combination is (eggyolk + sugar) + milk = custard.
a non custard sequence is eggyolk + (sugar + milk) = not-custard which has a
corresponding (different) tree structure.
for cake we have ((sugar + butter) + eggs) + flour which is yet another tree
structure.

If we write down all possible 'combination' trees for 4 ingredients we get five
trees corresponding to
(1 + (2 + 3)) + 4
1 + ((2 + 3) + 4)
1 + (2 + (3 + 4))
( ( 1 + 2) + ( 3 + 4) )
((1 + 2) + 3) + 4

If we consider the process of a branch switching (at its root) from a left joining
point to an equivalent joining point, we have a series of trees that 'transition'
into each other, forming a pentagram shape. This is a 'famous shape' which has a
role whenever we need to think about the process of combining things in different
orders, which is very widespread in maths where there are different 'combining
operations' say addition.

KEY: Here we turn algebra into a geometric shape than conveys all the required
information.

We can do the same exercise for five ingredients and end up with a 3d shape (?? the
dimension of the shape is number of ingredients - 1?)
Increasingly complex shapes can be derived for other numbers of ingredients.
Research is ongoing about organizing these shapes (??)

(HtBPi)
we model custard making as an upward tree with the leaves containing the base
ingredients, and the root being 'custard'. when two ingredients are combined, their
nodes are connected to an intermediate tree node.

the 'trees' for first combining (first mix egg yolk and sugar) then add milk (which
gives custard) is not the same as the tree where you first mike sugar and milk,
then add egg yolk. (when you get 'not custard')

These trees are another way of bringing out differences in structure.

CT studies these kind of relationships carefully because it is something we take

for granted in basic mathematical worlds which is not true *in other mathematical
worlds* (_ so again the precise context affects what holds and what does not).
With numbers we can show that (5 + 6) + 3 = 5 + ( 6 + 3)
we can replace numbers with variables to get

(x + y) + z = x + (y + z)

but, with custard we see that (egg yolks + sugar) + milk != egg yolk + (sugar +
milk)

Here associativity doesn't hold. Why? because the '+' sign means something more
than throwing the two operands together into one 'location' (say a cup, this works
for marbles, say. marble addition is associative). This difference in what "+"
means, is why the results are different.

CT is well equipped to study situations that are better than the custard one. With
four ingredients there are five possible 'combination trees' similar to the
'custard tree' we saw earlier.

We can (KEY) relate these five trees to each other by adopting the notation 'we
draw an arrow between trees x and y, when y results from moving a branch of x from
a leftward growing parent branch, to a right ward growing parent branch' .

then these (trees + arrows) form a pentagon, which is 'very famous in category
theory' (??) and relevant for whenever we think about processes of putting things
together in different combinations, which is very wide spread in math.

If we do the same for all trees of *five* leaves, we get a three dimensional shape
with six pentagons and three squares.

These shapes can be generalized to n leaves and several research fields deal with
the problem of organizing these shapes (!!!)

Some Things That May Or May Not Be The Same

(HtBPi)
Consider the set {1,2,3}

Now consider the sets

1. {2,3,4}
2. {2,4,6}
3. {-1, -2, -3}
4. {11, 12, 13}
5. {101, 102, 103}
6. {100,200,300}
7. {13,28,42}
8. {cat, dog, banana}

Which of the following sets are 'sort of similar'?

the first one 'is similar' because the numbers are just upshifted by 1
the second 'is similal' because the numbers are multiplied by 2
the third one is just the negatives of the first set
the fourth and fifth are shifted by 10 and 100 respectively.
the sixth is multiplied by 100
the seventh is a random looking set with no obvious connection to the original
set
the eighth isn't even a set of numbers.
The important thing is that we naturally think about the relationship between the
things in the set when wondering whether the sets are similar or not.
But in fact, (KEY) in mathematics, a "set" is just a bunch of objects, where we
have (KEY) "forgotten" about any relationships between them. So *mathematically*
these sets are all "the same" just because they have three members each.

This is *not* a very subtle notion of 'sameness' (which is why) In Category Theory,
we (usually?) incorporate information about the relationships between things as
well.

Later we see that the notion of "sameness" *for groups* is more subtle, because a
groups have a way of combining objects for us to think about.

The sets above are a situation where the wrong notion of 'sameness' because it made
too many things 'the same'.

For example, in the trees we were looking at earlier, what mattered == how many
leaves there were, and how branches were connected.
what didn't matter == the angle at which the branches were drawn, how thick the
lines in question are.

sometimes notions of sameness are not as obvious as any of these things.

What about this set of numbers

{13,28,41}

This looks like the seventh set, but with a basic difference = the third element is
the sum of the first two.

In the next chapter, we see how situations like this can be expressed, where it is
a relationship between *several* objects not just two.