I think that they mean in this source this /particular/ way of diagrammatic reasoning, as pioneered by Coecke, who literally wrote the book on it (http://www.cambridge.org/gb/pqp), although very similar diagrammatic reasoning has been used for some time in Category Theory through string diagrams (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_diagram).
I think the approach is different. String diagrams is a small DSL while the above is intended to be more foundational and be used to bootstrap and translate between various specific diagrammatic theories (including String diagrams).
> The study of each of these ‘diagrammatic theories’, each modelling a separate part of cognitive, physical, or mathematical reality, are currently separate. Our grand vision is to develop a fully integrated framework, in which all of the above can be comprehended and dealt with together.
> More deeply, this approach can also be applied to the study of diagrammatic theories themselves [12, 33]. As such, it is its own ‘metatheory’. One major goal of the project will be to understand to what extent this can serve as a foundation for mathematics itself, as a replacement for set theory.
Also, as an ironic side note in relation with the article, some of the diagrammatic theories that have been elaborated by this group include diagrams that contain (and not just represent) matrices. I don't know why I'm commenting in this thread, I don't understand anything in these papers, I just know it describes what I see, i.e. the great universal diagram. Don't you see it ?
It's funny reading the comments in here; when this first got retweeted onto my twitter timeline I thought it was just a picture of someone's dressing table and the tweet was a joke about (lots of) men not being able to recognise makeup products ...
I feel like the difference lies in that Warwick (and some other UK universities who do the same thing, including my own) do still have a relatively high barrier to entry that sets them apart from the American for-profits.
Not to say that Warwick & other institutions aren't as for-profit as places like Corinthians, but they definitely manage to get away with it by still maintaining academic excellence.
You could make the argument that the ivy league is 'for profit' but their qualifications will typically get you a career to pay off your massive student loans...it's the quality of what's being sold that is the interesting element here, I'd suggest.
