71–80 of 124 posts
How do I see the notation? The diagrams sure look beautiful, but I must be missing something obvious… Thanks!
I just noticed there are 3 tabs for a diagram - substance style domain. This seems too hard to use by person, but I look forward to seeing this plugged into chatgpt
A lot of replies here are missing the key idea behind Penrose: that the "substance" and "style" of any mathematical diagram are separable. For example, the "substance" of a diagram might be a collection of sets with known subset relationships: Set A, B, C IsSubset(B, A) IsSubset(C, A) That same substance can then be rendered in many different styles, e.g. as a Venn diagram or as a tree diagram (substance vs. style is…
> substance vs. style is a lot like HTML vs. CSS Given the popularity of frameworks like TailwindCSS, it seems that people here don’t understand the advantage of separating HTML and CSS either, so I’m not sure if this analogy is helpful…
I did take a look at the gallery. Penrose is no alternative for the majority of diagrams I can do with mermaid or D2, right? It's more about "mathematical" diagrams instead of ER, UML or EPKs right?
That said, I’m intrigued how these two compare?
The caffeine example is laughable. https://penrose.cs.cmu.edu/try/?examples=structural-formula/...
A lot of replies here are missing the key idea behind Penrose: that the "substance" and "style" of any mathematical diagram are separable. For example, the "substance" of a diagram might be a collection of sets with known subset relationships: Set A, B, C IsSubset(B, A) IsSubset(C, A) That same substance can then be rendered in many different styles, e.g. as a Venn diagram or as a tree diagram (substance vs. style is…
> substance vs. style is a lot like HTML vs. CSS Given the popularity of frameworks like TailwindCSS, it seems that people here don’t understand the advantage of separating HTML and CSS either, so I’m not sure if this analogy is helpful…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_(surname) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose There's enough other Penroses to choose from; sir Roger doesn't own the (sur)name.
Yes, but his name is the obvious one. If I say "Dyson" and you're in the UK, you think of vacuums, "Penrose" and you think of Mathematical Physics. I doubt this would come to court. The main problem is the temerity of using the name of a living person in this way. But, they could have sought permission, in which case, all is well.
Mathematical Physics :)
The caffeine example is laughable. https://penrose.cs.cmu.edu/try/?examples=structural-formula/...
What is laughable about it?
I feel like a lot of people are not aware of the tools that are available and they keep building the same thing over and over... or, the other amazing thing missing a feature and this thing now has this feature but lacks completeness of other etc, etc... Which means we are doing two things bad: composability and informing us. What do you think?
The caffeine example is laughable. https://penrose.cs.cmu.edu/try/?examples=structural-formula/...
What is laughable about it?
It seems they just used a naive algorithm for automatic atom placement with a goal to minimize overlaps between the atoms.