From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.science.mathematics.categories/4625 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: John Baez Newsgroups: gmane.science.mathematics.categories Subject: Bourbaki and Categories Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 13:54:51 -0700 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1241020064 14093 80.91.229.2 (29 Apr 2009 15:47:44 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:47:44 +0000 (UTC) To: categories Original-X-From: rrosebru@mta.ca Mon Sep 22 20:32:37 2008 -0300 Return-path: Envelope-to: categories-list@mta.ca Delivery-date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 20:32:37 -0300 Original-Received: from Majordom by mailserv.mta.ca with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1KhumW-0004Hr-3C for categories-list@mta.ca; Mon, 22 Sep 2008 20:25:28 -0300 Content-Disposition: inline Original-Sender: cat-dist@mta.ca Precedence: bulk X-Keywords: X-UID: 121 Original-Lines: 44 Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.science.mathematics.categories:4625 Archived-At: On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 10:16:31PM -0400, jim stasheff wrote: > John Baez wrote: > >I can imagine a new Bourbaki who tries to explain all of > >mathematics in the language of categories. But I can > >also imagine a new Bourbaki who tries to explain all of > >mathematics in the language of infinity-categories. > Is it necessary to have a global point of view to appreciate Bourbaki? I > found them quite valuable locally - i.e.. just a few of the chapters by > themselves earned my appreciation. It's easy to appreciate their books locally - but I think they sought a global systematic viewpoint while writing them. It's possible that a "neo-Bourbaki" should take a less systematic approach. Mathematics may be too much in a state of foundational flux for a systematic approach to be successful right now. Maybe the best we can hope for is something a bit more like Wikipedia, where different people contribute different portions of text, and they don't cohere in a polished whole. But presumably anyone calling for a new Bourbaki wants something different from Wikipedia. There's "Scholarpedia": http://www.scholarpedia.org/ but it doesn't seem to be doing anything with math yet, and if it ever does, I bet it'll take a "midde-of-the-road" approach instead of pushing a specific intellectual agenda. I would like to see lots of people try lots of different things. Best, jb