From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.science.mathematics.categories/6222 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ruadhai Newsgroups: gmane.science.mathematics.categories Subject: Re: subculture Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2010 01:38:09 +0100 Message-ID: References: Reply-To: Ruadhai 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 1285451501 15227 80.91.229.12 (25 Sep 2010 21:51:41 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2010 21:51:41 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Categories list To: "Eduardo J. Dubuc" Original-X-From: majordomo@mlist.mta.ca Sat Sep 25 23:51:39 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: gsmc-categories@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from smtpy.mta.ca ([138.73.1.139]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Ozcef-0001dw-DO for gsmc-categories@m.gmane.org; Sat, 25 Sep 2010 23:51:37 +0200 Original-Received: from mlist.mta.ca ([138.73.1.63]:39017) by smtpy.mta.ca with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Ozcdo-0004bY-77; Sat, 25 Sep 2010 18:50:44 -0300 Original-Received: from majordomo by mlist.mta.ca with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Ozcdk-0000IL-O0 for categories-list@mlist.mta.ca; Sat, 25 Sep 2010 18:50:40 -0300 In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.science.mathematics.categories:6222 Archived-At: 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. Ruadha=ED On 24 September 2010 16:44, Eduardo J. Dubuc 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 o= f > 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 fel= t > 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 o= f > 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/ ]