From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.science.mathematics.categories/3115 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: jim stasheff Newsgroups: gmane.science.mathematics.categories Subject: (unknown) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 21:07:25 -0500 Message-ID: <4418C85D.10506@math.upenn.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1241019103 7308 80.91.229.2 (29 Apr 2009 15:31:43 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:31:43 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: rrosebru@mta.ca Thu Mar 16 05:29:19 2006 -0400 Return-path: Envelope-to: categories-list@mta.ca Delivery-date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 05:29:19 -0400 Original-Received: from Majordom by mailserv.mta.ca with local (Exim 4.52) id 1FJolS-0005rH-Jo for categories-list@mta.ca; Thu, 16 Mar 2006 05:27:26 -0400 User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051201) Original-Lines: 157 Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.science.mathematics.categories:3115 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: 61 > I was aiming at the fact that > there is > a certain trend within category theory (when did it start?) to consistely > give center stage to anything that claims to have connections with physics > (in particular string theory). Is this because (it is believed that) the > state of category theory is now so poor (as "evidenced" by the lack of > grants) that they (the organizers of meetings) want to repair this image at > any cost? Also, by so doing, are we not becomeing vulnerable? Are we not > pushing students to work on a certain area on the grounds that it is > fashionable and likely to be funded, even if those students may lack the > motivation and sound background knowledge? I feel that this is dangerous > for > category theory (and mathematics in general), as it may lead (is leading?) > to narrow developments of any subject that is approached with these > objectives in mind. I did point these concerns of mine already, in response > to the posting by Robert MacDawson, whom I also thank for giving me the > opportunity to make clearer what my real concerns are. > Consider instead what happened in algebraic topology in the last century (or in invariant theory of polynomial forms in the previous one): classic internal problems e.g. homotopy groups of spheres ground on and on while the enthusiasm and excitement of `application' motivated problems died with a lack of such problems (I have in mind vector fields on spheres and allsorts of diff geom motivations). > On the subject of what constitutes good mathematics, Ronnie Brown has > pointed out to me a beautiful expose (with Tim Porter) which you can > find in > www.bangor.ac.uk/r.brown/publar.html > I urge you to read it. Exactly - if it's good math, it's not tainted by being invented by physicists. jim > > I end with a quote from the end of David Yetter's posting in reply to mine. > "If (I suspect when) the string theory emperor turns out to have no > clothes, > category theory will suddenly become de rigeur in physics". I share his > optimism. > > > Most cordially, > Marta Bunge > > > > > ************************************************ > Marta Bunge > Professor Emerita > Dept of Mathematics and Statistics > McGill University > 805 Sherbrooke St. West > Montreal, QC, Canada H3A 2K6 > Office: (514) 398-3810 > Home: (514) 935-3618 > marta.bunge@mcgill.ca > http://www.math.mcgill.ca/bunge/ > ************************************************ > > > > >> From: "John Baez" >> To: categories@mta.ca >> Subject: categories: Re: cracks and pots >> Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 11:56:09 -0800 (PST) >> >> Hi - >> >> > I just came across the following pages >> > >> > http://motls.blogspot.com/2004/11/category-theory-and-physics.html >> > http://motls.blogspot.com/2004/11/this-week-208-analysis.html >> > >> > written by Lubos Motl, a physicist (string theorist). Some of you may >> find >> > these articles interesting and probably revealing. >> > >> > Are we category theorists as a whole going to quietly accept getting >> > discredited by a minority of us presumably applying category theory to >> > string theory? >> >> I can't tell if you're kidding. I'll assume you're not. >> >> There's nothing wrong with applying category theory to string theory. >> The papers by Michael Douglas and Paul Aspinwall cited above by Motl >> are some nice examples of using derived categories to study D-branes. >> >> Further examples: the Moore-Seiberg relations turn out to be little >> more than the definition of a balanced monoidal category, and the >> Segal-Moore axioms for open-closed topological strings are nicely >> captured using category theory here: >> >> http://arxiv.org/abs/math.AT/0510664 >> >> There were a lot of nice talks on the borderline between category >> theory and string theory at the Streetfest. >> >> Perhaps more to the point, Lubos Motl is famous for his heated >> rhetoric. He doesn't like me, or anyone else who criticizes >> string theory. The articles you mention above are mainly reactions >> to my This Week's Finds. >> >> He's actually being very gentle - for him. He even says "the >> role of category theory can therefore be described as a `progressive >> direction' within string theory". >> >> I'm sure you'll all be pleased to know that. :-) >> >> > It is surely not too late to react and point out that this is >> > not what (all of) category theory is about. >> >> I would urge everyone not to react - at least, not until they are >> well aware of what a discussion with him is like. See his blog >> and his comments on Peter Woit's blog if you don't understand what >> I mean. For example: >> >> http://pitofbabel.org/blog/?p=51 >> >> > Please give a thought about what >> > we, as a community, can urgently do to repair this damaging impression. >> >> Since Motl's personality is well known, any damage will be minimal. >> I think we should relax and take it easy. >> >> Best, >> jb >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >