Re: The disdain for categories

[jim stasheff <jds@math.upenn.edu>]

Andre Joyal wrote:
> Jim Stasheff wrote:
>
>   
>> In my experience, disdain for cat theory is due to papers with a very
>> high density of unfamiliar names
>> reminiscent of the minutia of PST and the (in) famous comment (by some
>> one) about something like:
>> hereditary hemi-demi-semigroups with chain condition
>>     
>
> The chosen example is not too convincing, 
> since the notions involved are not typically categorical.
> Complicated sentences like this can be found in every fields.
> They are often the mark of a poor paper.
> Category theory is a powerful tool for crossing 
> the boundaries between the fields.
> The unity of mathematics is growing stronger every day.
>
> andre
>
>   

Indeed, the quote I was misremembering was NOT in category theory
how's that for crossing the boundaries between the fields. ;-)
in fact, it turns out that the correct usage is
hemi-demi-semi-quaver - in music!

jim

> -------- Message d'origine--------
> De: cat-dist@mta.ca de la part de jim stasheff
> Date: mar. 09/09/2008 18:22
> À: categories@mta.ca
> Objet : categories: Re: Categories and functors, query
>  
> Walter,
>
> I beg to differ only with
>
> In my experience, skepticism towards category theory is often rooted in
> the fear of the "illegitimately large" size, till today.
>
> In my experience, disdain for cat theory is due to papers with a very
> high density of unfamiliar names
> reminiscent of the minutia of PST and the (in) famous comment (by some
> one) about something like:
> hereditary hemi-demi-semigroups with chain condition
>
> jim
>  Tholen wrote:
>   
>> There is another aspect to the E-M achievement that I stressed in my
>> CT06 talk for the Eilenberg - Mac Lane Session at White Point. Given the
>> extent to which 20th-century mathematics was entrenched in set theory,
>> it was a tremendous psychological step to put structure on "classes" and
>> to dare regarding these (perceived) monsters as objects that one could
>> study just as one would study individual groups or topological spaces.
>> In my experience, skepticism towards category theory is often rooted in
>> the fear of the "illegitimately large" size, till today. By comparison,
>> Brandt groupoids lived in the cozy and familiar small world, and their
>> definition was arrived at without having to leave the universe. With the
>> definition of category (and functor and natural transformation)
>> Eilenberg and Moore had to do a lot more than just repeating at the
>> monoid level what Brandt did at the group level! In my view their big
>> psychological step here is comparable to Cantor's daring to think that
>> there could be different levels of infinity.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Walter.
>>     
>
>
>
>
>