From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.science.mathematics.categories/5840 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Joyal=2C_Andr=E9?= Newsgroups: gmane.science.mathematics.categories Subject: Re: terminology Date: Sat, 22 May 2010 18:44:31 -0400 Message-ID: References: <4BF84FF3.7060806@btinternet.com> Reply-To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Joyal=2C_Andr=E9?= NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1274624538 9749 80.91.229.12 (23 May 2010 14:22:18 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 23 May 2010 14:22:18 +0000 (UTC) To: "Ronnie Brown" Original-X-From: categories@mta.ca Sun May 23 16:22:11 2010 connect(): No such file or directory Return-path: Envelope-to: gsmc-categories@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mailserv.mta.ca ([138.73.1.1]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OGC4A-0002i3-Et for gsmc-categories@m.gmane.org; Sun, 23 May 2010 16:22:10 +0200 Original-Received: from Majordom by mailserv.mta.ca with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1OGBmn-0002lo-11 for categories-list@mta.ca; Sun, 23 May 2010 11:04:13 -0300 Thread-Index: Acr5+DHFBZT1xcNjT16nONAsbMumUQABw83m Original-Sender: categories@mta.ca Precedence: bulk Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.science.mathematics.categories:5840 Archived-At: Dear Ronnie, I totally agree with what you wrote. I wrote=20 ------------------------------------------------------------ One lies in the fact that equivalent categories are considered=20 to be the "same", -------------------------------------------------------------=20 I was careful not to write ------------------------------------------------------------ One lies in the fact that equivalent categories are considered=20 to be the same, -------------------------------------------------------------=20 Sorry for not been clear enough. I hope this settle our apparent disagreement. Best, Andr=E9 -------- Message d'origine-------- De: Ronnie Brown [mailto:ronnie.profbrown@btinternet.com] Date: sam. 22/05/2010 17:43 =C0: Joyal, Andr=E9 Cc: Urs Schreiber; categories@mta.ca Objet : Re: RE : categories: Re terminology: =20 Dear Andr=E9 There seems to me to be a tremendous amount of great work going on=20 higher category theory, but when you write ----------------------------------------------------- One lies in the fact that equivalent categories are considered to be the = "same",=20 even if [or] when they are not isomorphic. ----------------------------------------- this seems to go against the grain of what I have been doing in = groupoids since I decided they were valuable in about 1965! It sounds = like the old canard `groupoids reduce to groups', so there must be some = confusion in my mind on what you are saying.=20 .... [For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]