* Re: subculture
@ 2010-09-27 3:06 Todd Trimble
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Todd Trimble @ 2010-09-27 3:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Joyal, André; +Cc: Categories list
Dear Andre,
As someone who contributes to the nLab, let me assure you that
opinions on the appropriateness of the word "evil" (in the sense
being discussed here) also vary among workers in the nLab.
Not all of the subscribers of this list may know about the nLab,
but we are far from a homogeneous block. There are certainly
regular nLab contributors who have voiced their displeasure with
the word.
I think you're right: the people who use this term are still a
pretty small group. Nevertheless, sometimes slang terms do
catch fire and become widespread, and evidently this has
become a cause for alarm for some people here.
While I won't take a position on the acceptability on the word
myself, beyond saying that it's not likely to become part of my
own language, I would at least like to defend its appearance
in the nLab. To some extent, the nLab functions as a dictionary
for those who work with categorical language (that is at least
one of its functions). So one could view the people who edit
the nLab as, in part, editors of a dictionary; as such, there is
a kind of obligation to record uses of the living language and
describe it as accurately as possible. Thus the function here is
descriptive, not prescriptive (or proscriptive).
That said, it's also true that reputable dictionaries will record
how the word is received by speakers: some words may be
described as 'vulgar' or 'offensive' (at least for some speakers),
or as slang or substandard or whatever. So if a word like "evil"
is offensive to some people here, it's arguably our responsibility
to record that fact as well, and link to this discussion here.
A case in point is the (I think tongue-in-cheek) expression
"fascist functor". Some of you may recall that a "free functor"
is to the "left" (in an adjoint string), so a "fascist functor" would
be to the "right" in an adjoint string. It's a little jokey (as some
people think "evil" is), and yet it still excites emotions, as we
discovered in a recent nForum discussion. Something of those
reactions were hinted at in the Lab, and I think we would do
well to do the same with regard to "evil".
Best,
Todd
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joyal, André" <joyal.andre@uqam.ca>
To: "Ruadhai" <ruadhai@gmail.com>; "Eduardo J. Dubuc" <edubuc@dm.uba.ar>
Cc: "Categories list" <categories@mta.ca>
Sent: Saturday, September 25, 2010 7:10 PM
Subject: categories: RE : categories: subculture
Dear All,
I am displeased with the idea that
terminology is purely conventional
and that everything is acceptable.
The "evil" terminology is promoted
by a small group of peoples active in the nLab.
It does not reflect a commun usage in the
mathematical community.
Best,
André
[For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* subculture
@ 2010-09-24 15:44 Eduardo J. Dubuc
2010-09-25 0:38 ` subculture Ruadhai
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Eduardo J. Dubuc @ 2010-09-24 15:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Categories list
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/ ]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: subculture
2010-09-24 15:44 subculture Eduardo J. Dubuc
@ 2010-09-25 0:38 ` Ruadhai
2010-09-26 2:43 ` subculture David Leduc
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Ruadhai @ 2010-09-25 0:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eduardo J. Dubuc; +Cc: Categories list
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/ ]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: subculture
2010-09-25 0:38 ` subculture Ruadhai
@ 2010-09-26 2:43 ` David Leduc
2010-09-26 3:19 ` subculture Fred Linton
[not found] ` <AANLkTikJoHkO2M_3hnrQqqFq2_N2T9i6KF2DRFbHTujP@mail.gmail.com>
2 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: David Leduc @ 2010-09-26 2:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ruadhai; +Cc: Eduardo J. Dubuc, Categories list
Ruadhai <ruadhai@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
It is certainly not the case of the work "kosher" used by some people
on this list.
[For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: subculture
2010-09-25 0:38 ` subculture Ruadhai
2010-09-26 2:43 ` subculture David Leduc
@ 2010-09-26 3:19 ` Fred Linton
[not found] ` <AANLkTikJoHkO2M_3hnrQqqFq2_N2T9i6KF2DRFbHTujP@mail.gmail.com>
2 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Fred Linton @ 2010-09-26 3:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Categories list; +Cc: Eduardo J. Dubuc, Ruadhai
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/ ]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <AANLkTikJoHkO2M_3hnrQqqFq2_N2T9i6KF2DRFbHTujP@mail.gmail.com>]
* Re: subculture
[not found] ` <AANLkTikJoHkO2M_3hnrQqqFq2_N2T9i6KF2DRFbHTujP@mail.gmail.com>
@ 2010-09-26 3:43 ` Eduardo J. Dubuc
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Eduardo J. Dubuc @ 2010-09-26 3:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Leduc; +Cc: Ruadhai, Categories list
I give my opinion simultaneously to several postings;
(1) Ruadhai wrote:
>> 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.
Precisely, we should not accept a terminology just because it does not offend
anybody.
Jesus Christ !!, with this philosophy we could accept any ridiculous
terminology so far "it does not offend".
Terminologies may have an strong "ideological" connotation. To call something
"evil" it is not harmless, neither unintentional (do not forget the
unconscious part of the brain of those that promote "evil").
It also has a marketing attitude (compare with "catastrophe theory" to refer
to the classification of singularities of C^oo maps).
(1) David Leduc wrote:
> It is certainly not the case of the work "kosher" used by some people
> on this list.
Well, I can not imagine the word "not kosher" to offend anybody if applied to
something that it is not accepted by the rules of a discipline.
(like constructivism, intuitionism, or "accept only concepts invariant by
equivalence").
Of course, if "not kosher = evil", then some people would not like it. But the
blame is in those that introduced the terminology "evil" to refer to something
which is not necessarily evil.
(3) Joyal wrote:
> I am displeased with the idea that
> terminology is purely conventional
> and that everything is acceptable.
> The "evil" terminology is promoted
> by a small group of peoples active in the nLab.
> It does not reflect a commun usage in the
> mathematical community.
Well, certainly true what Andre says.
"evil" is a terminology so far used by some people, certainly not the
mathematical community. It has also the weakness to remain for ever within a
"subculture" that we do not want to be identified with category theory.
(Rene Thom had sufficiently strong contributions to mainstream mathematics to
impose his "catastrophe" terminology. This is not the case for the "evil"
terminology).
All the best to all, and welcome controversy !!.
e.d.
[For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2010-09-27 3:06 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2010-09-27 3:06 subculture Todd Trimble
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2010-09-24 15:44 subculture Eduardo J. Dubuc
2010-09-25 0:38 ` subculture Ruadhai
2010-09-26 2:43 ` subculture David Leduc
2010-09-26 3:19 ` subculture Fred Linton
[not found] ` <AANLkTikJoHkO2M_3hnrQqqFq2_N2T9i6KF2DRFbHTujP@mail.gmail.com>
2010-09-26 3:43 ` subculture Eduardo J. Dubuc
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).