% !TEX program = xelatex \documentclass[11pt, letterpaper]{article} \usepackage{fontspec} \usepackage{unicode-math} \setmainfont{Latin Modern Roman}[ Extension=.otf, UprightFont=lmroman10-regular, BoldFont=lmroman10-bold, ItalicFont=lmroman10-italic, BoldItalicFont=lmroman10-bolditalic, ] \setsansfont{Latin Modern Sans}[ Extension=.otf, UprightFont=lmsans10-regular, BoldFont=lmsans10-bold, ItalicFont=lmsans10-oblique, BoldItalicFont=lmsans10-boldoblique, ] \setmonofont{Latin Modern Mono}[ Extension=.otf, UprightFont=lmmono10-regular, ItalicFont=lmmono10-italic, Scale=0.88, ] \usepackage{xcolor} \usepackage{graphicx} \graphicspath{{figures/}{../arxiv-ac/figures/}} \usepackage{booktabs} \usepackage{ragged2e} \usepackage{microtype} \usepackage{multicol} \usepackage{listings} \usepackage[ top=2.2cm, bottom=2.5cm, left=2.0cm, right=2.0cm ]{geometry} \makeatletter \def\input@path{{../}} \makeatother \usepackage{ac-paper-layout} % Override the shared watermark: drop the left/right side pals logos, % keep only the diagonal WORKING DRAFT text. \ClearShipoutPicture \AddToShipoutPictureBG{% \begin{tikzpicture}[remember picture, overlay] \node[opacity=0.12, rotate=45, anchor=center] at (current page.center) {{\aclight\fontsize{2.5cm}{3cm}\selectfont\color{acpink} WORKING DRAFT}}; \end{tikzpicture}% } % --- listings style for KidLisp --- \lstdefinestyle{kidlisp}{ basicstyle=\ttfamily\footnotesize\color{acdark}, keywordstyle=\color{acpurple}\bfseries, commentstyle=\color{acgray}\itshape, showstringspaces=false, breaklines=true, columns=fullflexible, morekeywords={seq, par, add, copy, discard, scale, in-A, in-B, out-1, out-2}, morecomment=[l]{;}, frame=leftline, framesep=6pt, rulecolor=\color{acpink}, xleftmargin=8pt, } \newcommand{\gla}{\textsc{Graphical Linear Algebra}} \hypersetup{ pdftitle={Drawing Is Computing: KidLisp as an Interactive Medium for Graphical Linear Algebra}, pdfauthor={Jeffrey (prompt.ac / @jeffrey)}, } \begin{document} \thispagestyle{empty} \vspace*{\fill} \begin{center} \includegraphics[height=8em]{pals}\par\vspace{0.4em} {\acbold\fontsize{20pt}{24pt}\selectfont\color{acdark} Drawing Is Computing}\par \vspace{0.35em} {\fontsize{11pt}{14pt}\selectfont\color{acpink} KidLisp as an Interactive Medium for Graphical Linear Algebra}\par \vspace{1.0em} {\normalsize\color{cyan!70!blue}\textbf{@jeffrey}}\par {\small\color{acgray} Aesthetic.Computer}\par {\small\color{acgray} ORCID: \href{https://orcid.org/0009-0007-4460-4913}{0009-0007-4460-4913}}\par \vspace{0.8em} \rule{0.6\textwidth}{1pt}\par \vspace{0.4em} {\small\color{acpink!50}\textit{a position paper and collaboration proposal --- not for citation}}\par \vspace{0.3em} {\footnotesize\color{acgray} June 2026}\par \end{center} \vspace*{\fill} \clearpage \begin{multicols}{2} \begin{abstract} \noindent \gla{} (GLA) reframes linear algebra as a diagrammatic language: linear maps and relations become \emph{string diagrams}---generators wired together, composed in sequence and in parallel---and proofs become visual rewrites. Its pedagogy and its research artifacts, however, are overwhelmingly \emph{static}: PDFs, slides, chalk. This paper argues that Aesthetic Computer (AC) and its embedded language KidLisp are a natural \emph{interactive} substrate for GLA. I sketch three concrete bridges---a diagram renderer, an executable term language for props, and an animated signal-flow playground---note honestly where the tree/graph mismatch makes the problem interesting rather than trivial, and close with a proposal for collaboration with the GLA / Applied Category Theory (ACT) community. \end{abstract} \section{What Graphical Linear Algebra is} GLA is the research program of Filippo Bonchi, Pawe\l{} Soboci\'nski, and Fabio Zanasi (with Robin Piedeleu and others), popularised through Soboci\'nski's long-running blog \emph{graphicallinearalgebra.net}. Its core move is to stop writing linear algebra in matrices and symbols and start \emph{drawing} it. A diagram is built from a tiny set of \textbf{generators}---addition, the constant zero, copy, discard, and multiplication-by-a-scalar---drawn as boxes with wires. Two composition operators glue them: \begin{itemize} \item \textbf{sequential} ($\circ$): connect the outputs of one diagram to the inputs of the next, left to right; \item \textbf{parallel} ($\otimes$): stack two diagrams side by side. \end{itemize} The algebra of these diagrams is captured by the symmetric monoidal theory of \textbf{Interacting Hopf Algebras (IHA)}, a complete presentation of the \emph{prop of linear relations}---relations that are also linear subspaces. ``Complete'' is the punchline: two diagrams denote the same linear relation \textbf{if and only if} one can be rewritten into the other by the IHA equations. You no longer \emph{calculate}; you \emph{redraw}. A headline application is \textbf{signal flow graphs}---the dataflow diagrams engineers already use for linear dynamical systems and circuits---which GLA gives a fully compositional semantics. The key conceptual inversion: in GLA the picture is not an \emph{illustration} of the mathematics. The picture \textbf{is} the mathematics. \section{What Aesthetic Computer and KidLisp are} Aesthetic Computer is a mobile-first runtime and social network for creative computing: a musical-instrument-like interface where users discover memorisable paths and run published ``pieces''---small interactive programs addressed by URL. \textbf{KidLisp} is its embedded Lisp dialect for generative art: S-expressions over ${\sim}118$ graphics, timing, and math primitives, hot-reloaded live in the browser, every piece shareable by a short link. Two properties of AC matter for what follows: \begin{enumerate} \item \textbf{It is live and shareable by default.} A piece is a URL. There is no build step between an idea and a running, linkable artifact. \item \textbf{It treats spatial/visual interfaces as carriers of real computational meaning}---the same bet GLA makes about diagrams, aimed at a different domain. \end{enumerate} \section{The bridges} \subsection{A diagram renderer (the easy, immediately useful one)} A string diagram is a planar wiring of boxes: sequential composition runs left-to-right, parallel composition stacks vertically. KidLisp already draws boxes, lines, and text. A renderer that lays out GLA generators and their wires is a short piece---the companion artifact \texttt{gla.lisp} is a first, hand-placed instance: two inputs feeding an \textbf{add} node, whose sum feeds a \textbf{copy} node that fans out to two outputs, with animated dots showing the signal propagate. It runs in the browser today. The value here is pedagogical and immediate: GLA's teaching materials are static; an embeddable, linkable, \emph{animated} diagram is not. \subsection{An executable term language for props (the interesting one)} The naive pitch---``Lisp is already a diagram language''---undersells the problem, and saying so honestly is the whole point. \textbf{Lisp S-expressions are trees. String diagrams are graphs.} A tree has exactly one root and no sharing; an expression \texttt{(f (g x) (h x))} \emph{names} \texttt{x} twice but the term structure is still a tree with variables doing the sharing. GLA's power lives precisely in the structure trees cannot express directly: \begin{itemize} \item \textbf{copy / fan-out}---one wire becoming two---is sharing made first-class, \emph{without} a variable to name it; \item \textbf{discard}---throwing a wire away---is structural weakening; \item \textbf{feedback loops}---a signal flow graph's defining feature---are cycles, which a term tree simply does not have. \end{itemize} So ``render Lisp as diagrams'' is not the task. The real task is to design a \textbf{textual syntax for a prop}---a term language whose denotation is a morphism in a symmetric monoidal category, with explicit \texttt{copy}, \texttt{discard}, sequential $\circ$, and parallel $\otimes$ combinators, plus a trace / feedback operator. This is a known and respected problem (the \emph{internal language of monoidal categories}; related to the algebra of Frobenius/Hopf structures and to hypergraph categories). A KidLisp-flavored surface syntax that \textbf{evaluates} to a concrete linear relation---and renders the corresponding diagram as it goes---would be a genuine contribution: an executable, inspectable bridge between the textual and the diagrammatic, with a live runtime attached. Concretely, a generator set might read: \begin{lstlisting}[style=kidlisp] (seq ; sequential o (par in-A in-B) ; parallel (x) add ; * two in, one out copy ; o one in, two out (par out-1 out-2)) \end{lstlisting} \noindent where evaluation produces both the matrix/relation it denotes \emph{and} the drawn diagram---two views of one object, exactly GLA's thesis made interactive. \subsection{A signal-flow playground (the demonstrable one)} Signal flow graphs are GLA's flagship application and are \emph{intrinsically animated}: values stream down wires, scalars amplify, feedback accumulates. AC is built for exactly this---real-time, frame-driven, interactive. A piece where you wire generators on a canvas and \textbf{watch the linear system run}---adjust a scalar and see the trajectory change---is something the ACT community largely does not have. It is the most compelling demo of all three because it shows the diagram \emph{computing}, not just sitting. \section{Why this is worth a paper, a tool, or a thesis} The honest framing of the opportunity: \begin{itemize} \item \textbf{For pedagogy:} GLA wants to be approachable---that is why the blog exists. Interactive, linkable diagrams lower the entry cost further than any PDF can. \item \textbf{For research:} \S3.2 is a real open-flavored problem at the intersection of programming-language design and category theory---a term language and live evaluator for props/linear relations. \item \textbf{For the field's culture:} ACT prizes \emph{working} compositional tools. A browser-native, shareable GLA playground is a contribution in a form the community values and currently lacks. \end{itemize} A fair caveat, stated plainly: a PhD in these groups is \textbf{formal category theory}---props, monoidal categories, completeness proofs, papers. The tool-building is an excellent entry credential and complement, not a substitute for the abstract mathematics the degree demands. The right posture is to lead with the artifact and learn the formalism, not the reverse. \section{The people and the path} The GLA authors are the centre of gravity of Applied Category Theory: \begin{itemize} \item \textbf{Pawe\l{} Soboci\'nski}---Professor, \emph{TalTech} (Tallinn, Estonia); leads the Laboratory for Compositional Systems and Methods; supervises PhD students and coordinates a doctoral programme. Author of the GLA blog and an outreach-minded researcher. \textbf{The most natural first contact.} \item \textbf{Fabio Zanasi}---Professor, \emph{UCL} (London); co-author of the foundational GLA papers. \item \textbf{Filippo Bonchi}---\emph{University of Pisa}; the third co-author. \end{itemize} Two timely venues, both chaired by Soboci\'nski in Tallinn: \begin{itemize} \item \textbf{ACT 2026} (Applied Category Theory), 6--10 July 2026; \item \textbf{DIAGRAMS 2026}, 24--28 August 2026---arguably the better fit for an interactive-diagrams contribution. \end{itemize} Estonian doctoral positions are \textbf{salaried}, sidestepping the tuition-debt model of the US/UK. \subsection*{Proposed first move} Not ``may I do a PhD,'' but: \textbf{ship the smallest working demo and point at it.} A KidLisp piece that renders and animates a GLA string diagram (now in hand) plus a short note to Soboci\'nski---``here is what I build; I'd like to build it for category theory; DIAGRAMS 2026?''---tests the collaboration, funding, and thesis paths simultaneously, on the strength of a running artifact rather than a cold ask. Practitioners in this field notice tools. \section{Kindred voices: Richard Southwell and the diagrammatic turn} The case for an \emph{interactive} diagrammatic mathematics is not mine alone. In his 2026 talk \emph{Speculations about the future of mathematics}, the category-theory educator \textbf{Richard Southwell}---author of \emph{Categories and Toposes: Visualized and Explained}---argues that mathematics is shifting ``from this sort of algebraic, encoded style of maths to something more like'' drawing diagrams. His framing arrives, independently, at the exact metaphor underpinning this paper and my whistlegraph practice: \begin{quote} \itshape ``I liken [algebra] to \textbf{sheet music}---as opposed to [the diagram], which is the \textbf{actual music}. This is what our visual cortex can process.'' --- Richard Southwell \end{quote} His worked example \emph{is} the companion piece \texttt{gla.lisp}: ``a number flows in from the left; the black node \textbf{copies} it; the white node \textbf{adds}---put a 3 in, get a 3 and a 3, add them, get 6.'' He closes with a plea that is, almost verbatim, the mission of Aesthetic Computer: that people who understand graphical methods should ``spend more time trying to make it easier for the rest of us.'' Southwell---an independent educator actively seeking collaborators who make the subject visual---is plausibly a lower-friction first contact than a cold email to a department. \textbf{A calibration, stated honestly.} Southwell's talk pairs GLA with a second, far more speculative program: Norman Wildberger's \emph{box arithmetic}, which takes multisets (drawn as nested boxes, with ``anti-boxes'' for negatives) as a finitist foundation that rejects infinities and the real numbers. The two are \textbf{not} the same tier. GLA is rigorous, peer-reviewed, and complete (the IHA theorem); box arithmetic is heterodox, ultrafinitist, and---by Southwell's own admission---``the wild west,'' not even proven consistent. For a serious collaboration or thesis pitch, build on GLA. Box arithmetic is better treated as provocation and art-fuel. Notably, its nested-box structure is \emph{operadic}---rooted \textbf{trees}---which places it on the opposite side of the same tree-vs-graph divide drawn in \S3.2: GLA is the graph side, box arithmetic the tree side, and AC's score practice straddles both. \section{Status and next steps} \begin{itemize} \item[$\checkmark$] \texttt{gla.lisp}---animated signal-flow string diagram, live in AC. \item[$\circ$] Generalise from hand-placed coordinates to a small layout pass (a list of generators $\to$ auto-wired diagram). \item[$\circ$] Prototype the \S3.2 term language: \texttt{seq} / \texttt{par} / \texttt{add} / \texttt{copy} / \texttt{discard} / \texttt{scale} evaluating to both a relation and a drawing. \item[$\circ$] Add interaction: drag generators, edit scalars, watch the signal flow respond (\S3.3). \item[$\circ$] Draft a one-page note $+$ demo links for Soboci\'nski; target DIAGRAMS 2026. \end{itemize} \section*{References} \begin{itemize} \item Bonchi, Soboci\'nski, Zanasi --- \emph{Interacting Hopf Algebras} / \emph{A Categorical Semantics of Signal Flow Graphs}. \item Soboci\'nski --- \emph{Graphical Linear Algebra}, graphicallinearalgebra.net. \item Bonchi, Piedeleu, Soboci\'nski, Zanasi --- \emph{Graphical Affine Algebra} / \emph{Graphical Resource Algebra}. \item Soboci\'nski --- \emph{Laboratory for Compositional Systems and Methods}, TalTech (compose.ee/pawel). \item Richard Southwell --- \emph{Speculations about the future of mathematics} (2026), \url{https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l619jN5wkJA}; \emph{Categories and Toposes: Visualized and Explained}. \item Norman Wildberger --- \emph{box arithmetic} lectures (multiset foundations; ultrafinitist). \end{itemize} \end{multicols} \vspace{1em} \noindent\rule{\textwidth}{0.5pt}\par \vspace{0.3em} {\footnotesize\color{acgray} Companion artifacts: \texttt{gla.lisp} (Aesthetic Computer piece) and \texttt{studies/graphical-linear-algebra-kidlisp-study.md}. Source transcript: \texttt{studies/southwell-future-of-math-transcript.md}.} \end{document}