>>11888664>They completely miss out on causality, which is what makes bondgraphs useful. No, they don't, if you've read the paper.
Regardless, the paper is about examining deeper mathematical properties related to diagrams about dynamics, not about capturing the dynamics themselves. You're assuming what they're trying to do is the same thing you would do as an engineering student.
> they only consider a limited set of bond graphs, just resistors and capacitors IIRC. Page 2 of the paper:
"Baez and Fong [5] began this type of work by showing how to describe circuits made
of wires, resistors, capacitors, and inductors, as morphisms in a category using “decorated
cospans.” Baez and Erbele [4], and Bonchi, Soboci´nski, and Zanasi [12] separately studied signal flow diagrams as morphisms in some category. In other work Baez, Fong, and Pollard [6] looked at Markov processes, while Baez and Pollard [7] studied reaction networks using
decorated cospans. In all of these cases, the functorial semantics of the categories were also studied"
> It also took a math PHd to do it....because he's doing category theory and studying deeper category theory?
>Does it predict anything about bond graphs, no it just describes parts of them. Does it make implementing bond graph simulation in software any easier? Not really.1) you didn't read the paper
2) this research isn't predicated on a particular applied result.
3) there are tons of useful engineering papers that don't "predict" anything but provide a bed of theory...that's used in practical work later. The same can be said for many things in category theory, particularly in compilers and systems.
Why are you assuming the mathematician is trying to write on "how to use bondgraphs on dynamical systems we already understand?" The mathematician is writing on things we don't yet understand.
