You're reading the public-facing archive of the Category Theory Zulip server.
To join the server you need an invite. Anybody can get an invite by contacting Matteo Capucci at name dot surname at gmail dot com.
For all things related to this archive refer to the same person.
Paolo Perrone (Jun 04 2020 at 19:14):Hey all,
This is the discussion thread of Annabelle McIver's talk, "The Category of Correlations".
The talk, besides being on Zoom, is livestreamed here: https://youtu.be/NI0L9tWQg04
Paolo Perrone (Jun 04 2020 at 19:23):Date and time: Sunday, 7 Jun, 12h UTC.
Paolo Perrone (Jun 07 2020 at 11:40):Hello all! We start in 20 minutes.
Tomáš Gonda (Jun 07 2020 at 13:00):Would it be fair to characterize the idea/motivation of the category of correlations in the following way:
Since the secret is fixed across different information leaks, when we compose leaks into a network they don't depend on independent instances of the secret, but rather on a copy of the original secret. Thus, if we think of leaks as processes generating data that might depend on the secret, they have to compose in a way where the dependence on the secret is "sourced" from a common "ancestor" - the original secret.
Tobias Fritz (Jun 07 2020 at 14:11):Since Annabelle won't be able to comment herself before later today/tomorrow: the category of correlations from the end of her talk is introduced in Section 3 of this paper.
Paolo Perrone (Jun 07 2020 at 21:18):Hi all! Here's the video.
https://youtu.be/2M6sJzZiaiI
Annabelle McIver (Jun 08 2020 at 01:17):Tomáš Gonda said:
Would it be fair to characterize the idea/motivation of the category of correlations in the following way:
Since the secret is fixed across different information leaks, when we compose leaks into a network they don't depend on independent instances of the secret, but rather on a copy of the original secret. Thus, if we think of leaks as processes generating data that might depend on the secret, they have to compose in a way where the dependence on the secret is "sourced" from a common "ancestor" - the original secret.
Thanks for this. I think that characterisation looks right. Many concrete analyses of eg a program usually focusses on stand alone secrets and so this problem does not arise. It's only when one tries to compose things together that the analysis forces one to think about these things. In those little snuppets "print (x>0)" there are no state changes and so everything is easier, because the "original secret" is still what it was.
Annabelle McIver (Jun 08 2020 at 01:19):BTW -- the reference to the paper describing the category in detail is https://dblp.org/rec/bibtex/conf/birthday/RabehajaMMS19