From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.science.mathematics.categories/3655 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eduardo Dubuc Newsgroups: gmane.science.mathematics.categories Subject: Re: dagger vs involutive Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 19:19:05 -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 1241019436 9645 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 22:05:45 2007 -0400 Return-path: Envelope-to: categories-list@mta.ca Delivery-date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 22:05:45 -0400 Original-Received: from Majordom by mailserv.mta.ca with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1HOOxa-0000Qf-MZ for categories-list@mta.ca; Mon, 05 Mar 2007 21:59:26 -0400 Original-Sender: cat-dist@mta.ca Precedence: bulk X-Keywords: X-UID: 9 Original-Lines: 24 Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.science.mathematics.categories:3655 Archived-At: > > 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. > "after a vast amount of literature on triples" you should recall that also after a vast amount of literature on monads e.d.