From: Ronnie Brown <ronnie.profbrown@btinternet.com>
To: "categories@mta.ca" <categories@mta.ca>
Subject: A well kept secret?
Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2009 07:40:43 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <E1NINLH-0005dX-EA@mailserv.mta.ca> (raw)
In reply to André :
What seems reasonable to do is analysis, namely what is behind the
success of category theory and how is this success related to the
progress of mathematics.
Which implies asking questions of mathematics, some of which have been
aired in this discussion list. In this way, it should be possible to
avoid seeming partisan, but to ask serious questions, which should help
to steer directions, or suggest new ones. Of course lots of great maths
does not arise in this way, but by following one's nose, but that does
not mean that such analysis of direction is unhelpful.
I know some argue that this excursion into what might be called the
theory of knowledge, or into methodology, seems unnecessary to some. In
reply I sometimes point to remarks of Einstein on my web site
www.bangor.ac.uk/r.brown/einst.html
or more mundanely retort that normal activities normally require some
meta discussion: if you want to go on a holiday, you do some planning,
you don't just rush to the station and buy some tickets. I develop this
theme in relation to the teaching of mathematics in an article
What should be the output of mathematical education?
on my popularisation and teaching page.
I gave a talk to school children on `How mathematics gets into knots' in
the 1980s, and a teacher came up to me afterwards and said: `That is the
first time in my mathematical career that anyone has used the word
`analogy' in relation to mathematics.' Yet abstraction is about analogy,
and very powerful it is too. This was part of the motivation behind the
article
146. (with T. Porter) `Category Theory: an abstract setting for analogy
and comparison', In: What is Category Theory? Advanced Studies in
Mathematics and Logic, Polimetrica Publisher, Italy, (2006) 257-274. pdf
There is also interest in the question of how category theory comes to
be successful, and more successful than, say, the theory of monoids.
This seems connected with the underlying geometric structure being a
directed graph, i.e. allowing a `geography of interaction'. A category
is also a partial algebraic structure, with domain of definition of the
operation defined by a geometric condition. Is this enough to explain
the success?
It is worth noting that the article
Atiyah, Michael, Mathematics in the 20th century, Bull. London Math.
Soc., {34}, {2002}, 1--15,
suggests that important trends in the 20th century were:
higher dimensions, commutative to non
commutative, local-to-global, and the unification of mathematics,
but does not include the words `category' or `groupoid', let alone
`higher dimensional algebra'!
This kind of analysis needs to be presented to other scientists, and to
the public, not only to mathematicians. There is a hunger for knowing
what mathematics is really up to, in common language as far as possible,
what new concepts, ideas, etc., and not just `we have solved Fermat's
last theorem'.
If your analysis of what category theory should do suggests some gaps,
then that is an opportunity for work!
Good luck
Ronnie Brown
Joyal wrote:
Category theory is a powerful mathematical language.
It is extremely good for organising, unifying and suggesting new directions of research.
It is probably the most important mathematical developpement of the 20th century.
But we cant say that publically.
André Joyal
[For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]
next reply other threads:[~2009-12-09 7:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-12-09 7:40 Ronnie Brown [this message]
2009-12-14 18:41 ` Andrew Stacey
2009-12-15 5:12 ` John Baez
2009-12-15 20:14 ` A well kept secret Joyal, André
2009-12-16 13:08 ` RE : categories: " Joyal, André
[not found] ` <B3C24EA955FF0C4EA14658997CD3E25E2159B684@CAHIER.gst.uqam.ca>
2009-12-17 18:58 ` a conjecture Joyal, André
2009-12-17 5:08 ` A well kept secret? Ross Street
2009-12-17 23:30 peasthope
2009-12-18 4:09 ` John Baez
2009-12-18 22:25 ` Ellis D. Cooper
2009-12-19 17:45 ` Ronnie Brown
2009-12-19 22:16 ` John Baez
2009-12-20 22:52 ` Greg Meredith
2009-12-21 15:46 ` Zinovy Diskin
2009-12-22 16:59 ` zoran skoda
2009-12-23 1:53 ` Tom Leinster
2009-12-23 14:15 ` Colin McLarty
2009-12-20 21:50 ` jim stasheff
[not found] ` <d4da910b0912220859q3858b68am4e58749f21ce839d@mail.gmail.com>
2009-12-23 4:31 ` Zinovy Diskin
2009-12-23 14:35 ` Ronnie Brown
[not found] ` <4B322ACA.50202@btinternet.com>
2009-12-25 20:06 ` Zinovy Diskin
2009-12-20 17:50 ` Joyal, André
2009-12-18 10:48 ` KCHM
2009-12-19 20:55 ` Vaughan Pratt
2009-12-20 1:00 Larry Harper
2009-12-20 14:38 ` Colin McLarty
2009-12-20 17:47 ` jim stasheff
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=E1NINLH-0005dX-EA@mailserv.mta.ca \
--to=ronnie.profbrown@btinternet.com \
--cc=categories@mta.ca \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).