Warning: this is an htmlized version! The original is here, and the conversion rules are here.
% (find-angg "LATEX/2019newton-abs.tex")
% (defun c () (interactive) (find-LATEXsh "lualatex -record 2019newton-abs.tex" :end))
% (defun d () (interactive) (find-pdf-page "~/LATEX/2019newton-abs.pdf"))
% (defun b () (interactive) (find-zsh "bibtex 2019newton-abs; makeindex 2019newton-abs"))
% (defun e () (interactive) (find-LATEX "2019newton-abs.tex"))
% (find-xpdfpage "~/LATEX/2019newton-abs.pdf")
% (find-sh0 "cp -v  ~/LATEX/2019newton-abs.pdf /tmp/")
% (find-sh0 "cp -v  ~/LATEX/2019newton-abs.pdf /tmp/pen/")
%   file:///home/edrx/LATEX/2019newton-abs.pdf
%               file:///tmp/2019newton-abs.pdf
%           file:///tmp/pen/2019newton-abs.pdf
% http://angg.twu.net/LATEX/2019newton-abs.pdf
%
% (find-TH "math-b" "2019-newton")

\documentclass[oneside]{book}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{amsfonts}
\usepackage{amssymb}
\usepackage{pict2e}
\usepackage[x11names,svgnames]{xcolor} % (find-es "tex" "xcolor")
%\usepackage{tikz}
%
% (find-dn6 "preamble6.lua" "preamble0")
%\usepackage{proof}   % For derivation trees ("%:" lines)
%\input diagxy        % For 2D diagrams ("%D" lines)
%\xyoption{curve}     % For the ".curve=" feature in 2D diagrams
%
\usepackage{edrx15}               % (find-LATEX "edrx15.sty")
\input edrxaccents.tex            % (find-LATEX "edrxaccents.tex")
\input edrxchars.tex              % (find-LATEX "edrxchars.tex")
\input edrxgac2.tex               % (find-LATEX "edrxgac2.tex")
%
\begin{document}

\catcode\^^J=10

% %L dofile "edrxtikz.lua"  -- (find-LATEX "edrxtikz.lua")
% %L dofile "edrxpict.lua"  -- (find-LATEX "edrxpict.lua")
% \pu

% Voce teria interesse/possibilidade em participar deste evento,
% supondo o workshop ocorrendo entre os dias 11 e 12 de dezembro?

% Tenho até dia 15 pra mandar o abstract

% Mandei:

{\bf On two tricks to make Category Theory fit in less mental space:
missing diagrams and skeletons of proofs}

\medskip

When I started studying Category Theory two things in the texts gave
me the impression that CT was incredibly powerful: one was the
suggestion, implicit in the use of the definite article the'' in
expressions like {\sl the} functor that takes each object $B$ to $A {\times} B$'', that once we define how a functor acts on objects its
action on morphisms is obvious'' in some sense; the other one is the
idea that almost all reasoning in CT is diagrammatical, and that as
soon as we are past the beginner stage the diagrams become obvious''
too: they are omitted from the books and articles for reasons of
space, but drawing the missing diagrams'' is something that is
almost automatic.

In this talk I will present some techniques for drawing the missing
diagrams'' in a more or less canonical way, and for starting from a
skeleton'' of a categorical concept or proof and reconstructing the
rest from that.

% (find-books "__cats/__cats.el" "landry")

\end{document}

% Local Variables:
% coding: utf-8-unix
% ee-tla: "nea"
% End:
`