Re: subculture

["Fred Linton" <flinton@wesleyan.edu>]

It may well be, as Ruadhaí points out, that

> ... a quick google search of "category theory
> evil" gives the correct definition, from the nLab page.

But does a search for "evil" give you that, as well?

> ... 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.

The word "evil" is not a mere anagram for "live", "veil", or "vile",
but has a meaning of its own, replete with connotations of opprobrium
for whatever it is used as descriptive adjective for.

On that ground, I would propose, it *is* a poor choice -- unless
you see little point in respecting the ordinary meaning of the word
"evil", or great value in offending those who would respect it.

It's an excellent choice if your goal is precisely to offend those
for whom "evil" already has a meaning incompatible with its proposed
mathematical use here. Perhaps there are even better choices, though:
Why not "demented", "testicular", "terrorist", or "gay" instead? Or
some other negative word even better suited to the purpose of getting
a rise out of the literal-minded, if all you really want to do with it
is to "épater les bourgeois"?

With dumbfounded cheers, -- Fred



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