From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.science.mathematics.categories/3147 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eduardo Dubuc Newsgroups: gmane.science.mathematics.categories Subject: re: cracks and pots Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 13:50:45 -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 1241019121 7428 80.91.229.2 (29 Apr 2009 15:32:01 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:32:01 +0000 (UTC) To: categories@mta.ca Original-X-From: rrosebru@mta.ca Thu Mar 23 23:17:05 2006 -0400 Return-path: Envelope-to: categories-list@mta.ca Delivery-date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 23:17:05 -0400 Original-Received: from Majordom by mailserv.mta.ca with local (Exim 4.52) id 1FMcmj-0002Di-0v for categories-list@mta.ca; Thu, 23 Mar 2006 23:16:21 -0400 Original-Sender: cat-dist@mta.ca Precedence: bulk X-Keywords: X-UID: 93 Original-Lines: 79 Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.science.mathematics.categories:3147 Archived-At: Hi To follow are the contents of two postings that Bob (always vigilant, ja!) thought best to concatenate in only one. On spite of Robert's erudition and his knowledgeable discourse, I still think Einstein using differential geometry to develop general relativity is not at the same level that John Baez using category theory to develop and/or understand string theory. His arguments are valid in a court of law, but do not convince me. I imagine John himself is probably the first to laugh at such a comparison. But this is not the issue of my present posting. He touches also some pertinent points that go more to the core of the "cracks_and_pots" debate. (In between ** are Robert words) What Motl says certainly does not make people using category theory in string theory laugh. Applications of category theory to string (or to other physical theories competing with string theory ?, see Yetter's posting, it is all very confusing !!) may be valuable or may not. I (and a lot of us) can not tel. ** In which case demands that they ($) be read out of the meeting are premature. ($) papers that claim applications to physics ** This is a difficult question. Marta was saying (and Bob Walters and others agree) that when a paper was claiming applications to physics it was easily accepted without knowledgeable and close examination, and that there were a lot of them. Probably a lot of them should be read out, but not by policy against (as it was erroneously interpreted in these postings). Serious refereeing is a healthy practice that should not be equaled with censorship. **Remember - in mathematics it's a matter of "In God We Trust, everybody else must provide a proof."** This is not so much so. Speculations in math are very difficult. If not well founded they are vacuous. Only great mathematicians can do them (example close to us, Grothendieck), the rest of us must provide a proof. **If the math itself meets mathematical standards of rigor, its application to physics need surely only meet the standards appropriate to that subject.** The math itself must also meet standards of quality, not only of rigor. Besides that, "standards appropriate to that subject" does not mean "free for anything". Motl writes: "I always feel very uneasy if the mathematically oriented people present their conjectures about physics, quantum gravity, or string theory as some sort of "obvious facts." Clearly he is saying that these standards are not being fulfilled (in his opinion of course) by claimed applications of math to physics. Motl may be wrong or he may be right, what we have not seen yet in these postings is a convincing or clear answer to the questions he arises. I would say, not even an answer at all. These questions triggered Marta's original posting, which in turn was arising other (not exactly the same) questions. I do not agree necessarily with Marta's implicit views, what I support is her courage to point out that they are serious problems in the category theory community (for example, quality of the publications, abuse of fashionable topics to get grants, invited speakers in CT meetings). Best wishes e.d.