Re: subculture

[Ruadhai <ruadhai@gmail.com>]

Dear all,

I'd just like to point out that a quick google search of "category theory
evil" gives the correct definition, from the nLab page. As long as articles
are referenced properly, this is a non-issue. Moreover, frequently people
define things in papers which remain unused outside that one article - as
long as everything is clear, there is no problem here. With regards the
original problem, that evil is a poor choice, I personally see little point
in changing a word no one would be offended by.

Ruadhaí

On 24 September 2010 16:44, Eduardo J. Dubuc <edubuc@dm.uba.ar> wrote:

> As evident from the subject, this personal answer to Toby Bartels is
> intended
> to have general incumbency.
>
> Dear Toby, thanks for this msage, i will try to explain:
>
> Toby Bartels wrote:
> > Eduardo J. Dubuc wrote at first:
> >
> >> Dear Toby, your choice of example is very unfortunate. Mac Lane wrote
> that
> category theory was invented to define functor, and that functor was
> invented
> to define "natural" transformation.
> >
> > Yes, I know; that was quite deliberate.
>
> Well, I said "unfortunate" for those that are in favor of introducing the
> name
> "evil" (or any other name) as a definition of "not invariant under
> equivalence".
> You see, this is because to introduce a name the property has to be
> important
> enough and of frequent use. To sustain your case you should have given
> examples of properties (or concepts) which not being very important and of
> frequent use, have nevertheless an universally accepted proper name.
>
> > but beyond that I have no idea what upsets you,
> > and I'm not going to worry about it any more.
>
> I appreciate that you had worried at some point, and I am glad you do not
> worry any more.
>
> I try to explain why I sounded upset with you in my last mail because it
> has a
> general interest concerning the question of whether  we are a subculture or
> part of the mainstream of mathematics.
>
>  Recall that this was my only mail that concerns you in particular, and
> that
> it was in response to a mail of you, and that it was that mail that I felt
> upsetting.
>
> I quote from it:
>
> > Shall we stop saying "natural" and say "invariant under composition"?
> > Or is that term allowed under the grandfather clause,
>
> "the grandfather clause" is not something nice to qualify my sayings.
>
> > As a proud citizen of the Ghetto of Category Land,
>
> sounds ironic and upsetting, showing that you were very upset that i
> consider
> certain characteristics of our group proper of a ghetto, in the sense of
> isolation from the world of real mathematics. Well, I do think that one of
> these characteristics is the introduction of names and terminology in an
> unjustified way.  Andre Joyal call it "a subculture" (well, he just said
> there
> is a danger to become a subculture) which if you think a little, sounds
> better
> than "ghetto", but it is as negatively strong or even worst.
>
> I apologize to you for using that term that you had felt insulting (and I
> imagine some others in the list may have felt so)
>
> Your msage had an overall upsetting style, and I reacted accordingly.
>
> All the best, no hard feelings from my part.  e.d.
>

[For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]