From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.science.mathematics.categories/3124 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eduardo Dubuc Newsgroups: gmane.science.mathematics.categories Subject: Re: cracks and pots Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 14:29:12 -0300 (ART) Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1241019108 7340 80.91.229.2 (29 Apr 2009 15:31:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:31:48 +0000 (UTC) To: categories@mta.ca Original-X-From: rrosebru@mta.ca Thu Mar 16 20:34:48 2006 -0400 Return-path: Envelope-to: categories-list@mta.ca Delivery-date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 20:34:48 -0400 Original-Received: from Majordom by mailserv.mta.ca with local (Exim 4.52) id 1FK2uE-0000AN-TQ for categories-list@mta.ca; Thu, 16 Mar 2006 20:33:26 -0400 Original-Sender: cat-dist@mta.ca Precedence: bulk X-Keywords: X-UID: 70 Original-Lines: 59 Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.science.mathematics.categories:3124 Archived-At: Well Robert, 1) > Well, Einstein was not "trying to"; he was using it, and presented this > use as an accomplished fact. I just wanted to put in evidence the following fallacy that you are pushing forward: To attack the use of category theory (by some people) in string theory is at the same level that it would have been to attack the use (by Einstein) of differential geometry in general relativity. General relativity was born with differential geometry; it has no meaning without differential geometry. String theory was already there when a category theory approach began. It is not the same thing. Putting everything in the same bag is a well-known strategy to confuse an issue. Also, to have a poor opinion of many papers on applications of category theory to physics is one thing, to say that category theory has no future in physics is a completely different one. Nobody (including Motl's writing I am discussing (*)) has said the latter!! Quoting now from David Yetter: ** If (I suspect when) the string theory emperor turns out to have no clothes, Category theory will suddenly become de rigeur in physics". ** I start to believe that independently from what it finally happens with string theory; it is possible, even with the emperor well dressed, that category theory will with time become the rigeur in physics. 2) > Also, you forgot to mention that he flunk a high-school exam or > something of the sort proving by this very fact that a lot of people > were stupid, just as they are those which have doubts about the real > value of some applications of category theory to physics ! I can only say that I am sorry about your reaction to this. It was just an irony, and I thought this was evident. e.d. (*) Motl said (if I remember correctly) something of the sort that he thinks that to reach some goals of string theory certain category theory approach will not be helpful.