From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.science.mathematics.categories/4583 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Dusko Pavlovic Newsgroups: gmane.science.mathematics.categories Subject: Re: Bourbaki and Categories Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 20:26:56 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1241020040 13939 80.91.229.2 (29 Apr 2009 15:47:20 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:47:20 +0000 (UTC) To: categories@mta.ca Original-X-From: rrosebru@mta.ca Mon Sep 15 19:26:52 2008 -0300 Return-path: Envelope-to: categories-list@mta.ca Delivery-date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 19:26:52 -0300 Original-Received: from Majordom by mailserv.mta.ca with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1KfMQA-0003ri-Vw for categories-list@mta.ca; Mon, 15 Sep 2008 19:19:51 -0300 Original-Sender: cat-dist@mta.ca Precedence: bulk X-Keywords: X-UID: 53 Original-Lines: 67 Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.science.mathematics.categories:4583 Archived-At: 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