From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.science.mathematics.categories/4560 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: jim stasheff Newsgroups: gmane.science.mathematics.categories Subject: Re: The disdain for categories Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 21:25:24 -0400 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: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1241020026 13855 80.91.229.2 (29 Apr 2009 15:47:06 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:47:06 +0000 (UTC) To: categories@mta.ca Original-X-From: rrosebru@mta.ca Thu Sep 11 14:32:31 2008 -0300 Return-path: Envelope-to: categories-list@mta.ca Delivery-date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 14:32:31 -0300 Original-Received: from Majordom by mailserv.mta.ca with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Kdpuy-0002S0-5Q for categories-list@mta.ca; Thu, 11 Sep 2008 14:25:20 -0300 Original-Sender: cat-dist@mta.ca Precedence: bulk X-Keywords: X-UID: 30 Original-Lines: 84 Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.science.mathematics.categories:4560 Archived-At: Andre Joyal wrote: > Jim Stasheff wrote: > > =20 >> 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 >> =20 > > The chosen example is not too convincing,=20 > 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=20 > the boundaries between the fields. > The unity of mathematics is growing stronger every day. > > andre > > =20 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 > =C0: categories@mta.ca > Objet : categories: Re: Categories and functors, query > =20 > 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: > =20 >> 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 t= he >> extent to which 20th-century mathematics was entrenched in set theory, >> it was a tremendous psychological step to put structure on "classes" a= nd >> 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 i= n >> 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 t= he >> 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. >> =20 > > > > > =20