Re: Bourbaki and Categories

[Dusko Pavlovic <Dusko.Pavlovic@comlab.ox.ac.uk>]

i think that we should try to heed andre joyal's call for action. he calls
for a new collaborative effort a la bourbaki, this time based on
categories from the outset.

it is true that very ambitious efforts usually fail, and this would be an
extremely ambitious one. moreover, taking action sounds like something
people used to do in 20th century, and not in these times of fox news and
smooth crowd control.

but there are two points that make me think that andre's call is
different:

1) he is pointing to the reasons for action, that are slowly but surely
catching up with every scientist, no matter how much we try to ignore
them.

2) he is suggesting a medium (web, internet) that may make a difference
between... well between being able to make a difference and not being able
to make a difference.

ad (2), i would like to add that the web tools facilitate in a substantial
way not only dissemination, but also collaboration. there are methods to
support more efficient knowledge aggregation from a broader base than ever
before. developing a suitable collaboration process may be hard (at least
as hard as developing a suitable voting procedure), but it may be worth
while. eg, the wikipedia process can be criticized from many angles; but
wikipedia has the amazing property that it is an *evolutionary* knowledge
repository, which can easily correct any observed shortcomings, and
recover from any misinterpretations, almost like science itself.

at the moment, the wikipedia process is probably not optimal for
presenting subtle or many faceted concepts, and the discussions of
everyone with everyone else are not the most productive way. that is
perhaps why most of us (with some very honorable exceptions!) have been
staying away from it. but an improved process, combining the integrity,
and perhaps the structure of the categories@mta community with the
available wiki-methods may bring categorical methods into a dynamic
environment, perhaps more natural for them than books and papers.

just my 2c,
-- dusko

PS like an unwanted pop song, the name Nicolas Bourwiki just emerged in my
head! can someone please propose a worse one, or i am stuck. oh, i
already have a worse one...

On Sep 13, 2008, at 10:17 AM, Andre Joyal wrote:

> Bourbaki is dead but I hope that the humanistic philosophy behind the
> enterprise is not. Unfortunately, we presently live in an era of
> growing irrationalism.
> Science still needs to be defended against religion.
> Civilisation maybe at a turning point with the problem of climate
> change.
> Millions of people need and want to learn science and mathematics.
>
> Should we not try to give Bourbaki a second life?
> It will have to be different this time.
> Possibly with a new name.
> Obviously, internet is the medium of choice.
> What do you think?
>
> Andre