From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.science.mathematics.categories/3114 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: jim stasheff Newsgroups: gmane.science.mathematics.categories Subject: (unknown) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 20:58:45 -0500 Message-ID: <4418C655.4020109@math.upenn.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1241019102 7301 80.91.229.2 (29 Apr 2009 15:31:42 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:31:42 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: rrosebru@mta.ca Thu Mar 16 05:29:10 2006 -0400 Return-path: Envelope-to: categories-list@mta.ca Delivery-date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 05:29:10 -0400 User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051201) Original-Lines: 35 Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.science.mathematics.categories:3114 Archived-At: To categories@mta.ca Subject: categories: Re: cracks and pots In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: cat-dist@mta.ca Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 60 Marta Bunge wrote: > > I was trying to elicit an open response from those who *do* know about the > value (or lack of it) of categorical string theory. In particular, I would > like to have an answer to this question. Why is it that anything which even > remotedly claims to have applications to physics (particularly string > theory) is > given (what I view as) uncritical support in our circles? > > Best, > Marta > It's not so much the applications that seduce some of us but rather the *new* structures the physicists suggest that turn out to have neat mathemaical, e.g. categorical, aspects. e.g quantum groups jim