Re: cracks and pots

["Marta Bunge" <martabunge@hotmail.com>]

Dear Robert,

I agree with most of what you say, and I was not suggesting that we police
how categorists choose to apply their field. Nothing further from my mind.

>	Mathematics, like the phone service, is a "common carrier". We develop it;
>we use it; but we have neither the right nor the obligation to police how
>others apply it (unless they get the mathematics itself wrong?).  Moreover,
>given the historical difficulty of recognizing good physical theories ahead
>of time, it would be impossible to do so wisely even if we had the right.

But organizers of meetings in category-related subjects can certainly direct
attention to certain trends in category theory, thereby promoting certain
areas over others, and this they can easily do by their choice of invited
speakers of (series of) lectures. They may have neither the right nor the
obligation to do so, but they certainly have the power to do so. If this
happens consistently, then the outcome is predictable. Students (and their
advisors) might flock to certain areas of research just because they are
fashionable and can thus get funding that otherwise will not be easily
obtained. This may lead to narrow developments of any subject that they
approach with this objective in mind, and that is dangerous for the future
of category theory (of mathematics, in general). That is my main concern. My
posting tried to call attention to what I think is a sad state of affairs in
category theory, when it need not be.

Best wishes,
Marta