Won't let me post without a topic

So I am currently reading Chapter I of Toposes, Triples and Theories (http://www.case.edu/artsci/math/wells/pub/pdf/ttt.pdf) to gain some basic understanding of category theory. I'm advancing at a pace of one page an hour. Shit is fucking derp. If I get to the end of the chapter, a feat I am not really sure of being capable to accomplish yet, am I ready enough to start getting into the world of Haskell for Dummies?

NO EXCEPTIONS

>>1
I've been meaning to read that, how are you enjoying it?

You can start Haskell at any time. Contrary to popular belief, you don't need to know Category Theory.

GET THE FUCK OUT TRIPFAG

>>3
The author assumes you know set-theoretic and topological definitions and constructions well. If you don't, you will be checking Wikipedia for definitions all the time.

Constructions may also have duals. For example, the dual to the category of objects over A is the category of objects under A. An object is an arrow from A and an arrow from the object f:A→B to the object g:A→C is an arrow h from B to C for which h  f = g.

I think I just spent 5 to 10 minutes deciphering that sentence.

>>4
YOU MAD

>>4
jeepers!

>>5
Then I guess I will need to read that topology book I have lying around somewhere.

What little Category Theory I know, I know from http://programming-musings.org/2006/03/17/programmers-go-bananas/

>>6
YOU MAD
Back to the imageboards, please

Otherwise, I agree, >>4 is quite the upset individual

>>3
Contrary to popular belief, you don't need to know Category Theory.
This is an inexplicably popular blatant lie these days. I wonder whence it came…

After reading through >>9 and a little bit of >>1's pdf I must ask if I should be feeling enlightened? everything I read, when it wasn't a set theory or such "arithmetic" definition that I didn't understand off the top of my head, didn't leave me with any kind of ambiguous awe.

Won't let me post without a topic
lol