From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.science.mathematics.categories/3654 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: tholen@mathstat.yorku.ca Newsgroups: gmane.science.mathematics.categories Subject: dagger vs involutive Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 07:38:35 -0500 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=ISO-8859-1;format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1241019436 9643 80.91.229.2 (29 Apr 2009 15:37:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:37:16 +0000 (UTC) To: categories@mta.ca Original-X-From: rrosebru@mta.ca Mon Mar 5 15:44:16 2007 -0400 Return-path: Envelope-to: categories-list@mta.ca Delivery-date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 15:44:16 -0400 Original-Received: from Majordom by mailserv.mta.ca with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1HOIxJ-0002ON-J6 for categories-list@mta.ca; Mon, 05 Mar 2007 15:34:45 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline Original-Sender: cat-dist@mta.ca Precedence: bulk X-Keywords: X-UID: 8 Original-Lines: 15 Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.science.mathematics.categories:3654 Archived-At: Here is an outsider's view on the debate which is all about a formalistic (not to say meaningless) vs a meaningful name. There seem to be only very few occasions in mathematics when the formalistic name won, C*-algebras being a prominent example. In category theory, one is reminded of the hot debate of triples vs monads of the 60s and 70s. I guess that at the time of the "Zurich triple book" (SLNM 80) most people would have predicted that triples had already won the race. Mac Lane's book CWM appeared only 2 or 3 years later, after a vast amount of literature on triples. But he consistently used the meaningful name monad, even though (as far as I know) he had never directly published on the subject. You be the judge who won! Walter Tholen.