From: "Zinovy Diskin" <zdiskin@cs.toronto.edu>
To: categories@mta.ca
Subject: Re: dagger vs involutive
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 14:37:30 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <E1HOkxh-0001OS-0E@mailserv.mta.ca> (raw)
On 3/5/07, tholen@mathstat.yorku.ca <tholen@mathstat.yorku.ca > wrote:
>
> 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
why only few? Recall the Poisson bracket, or Dirac's delta-function, or
quaternions (though as a shorthand for 4D complex number it's probably more
meaningful than triples) or, say, derivative, which is a basic notion in
calculus yet is, in fact, quite a formalistic name. If to talk about
general tendencies, then it seems the winner would be a formalistic term
(unfortunately). Consider a competition between a meaningful yet too long,
or hard to pronounce, or not smooth in some sense term and a meaningless yet
short and energetic term, who would win? Many attempts to make terminology
and notation in a particular domain entirely consistent failed as soon as
they went beyond some reasonable level of consistency.
Zinovy Diskin
And aren't left-right adjoints, vertical-horizontal morphisms in fibrations
of purely typographical ("blackboardial") origin?
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.
>
>
>
next reply other threads:[~2007-03-06 19:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-03-06 19:37 Zinovy Diskin [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2007-03-07 15:13 Paul B Levy
2007-03-05 23:06 Prof. Peter Johnstone
2007-03-05 22:19 Eduardo Dubuc
2007-03-05 12:38 tholen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=E1HOkxh-0001OS-0E@mailserv.mta.ca \
--to=zdiskin@cs.toronto.edu \
--cc=categories@mta.ca \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).