From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.science.mathematics.categories/6253 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Martin Escardo Newsgroups: gmane.science.mathematics.categories Subject: Re: potential names Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 05:45:50 +0100 Message-ID: References: Reply-To: Martin Escardo NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1285802367 8761 80.91.229.12 (29 Sep 2010 23:19:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 23:19:27 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Juergen Koslowski To: categories , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Andr=E9?= Original-X-From: majordomo@mlist.mta.ca Thu Sep 30 01:19:25 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: gsmc-categories@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from smtpx.mta.ca ([138.73.1.138]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1P15vp-0004hu-Kh for gsmc-categories@m.gmane.org; Thu, 30 Sep 2010 01:19:25 +0200 Original-Received: from mlist.mta.ca ([138.73.1.63]:54093) by smtpx.mta.ca with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1P15uy-0000oE-Mx; Wed, 29 Sep 2010 20:18:32 -0300 Original-Received: from majordomo by mlist.mta.ca with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1P15ur-0001Zd-D4 for categories-list@mlist.mta.ca; Wed, 29 Sep 2010 20:18:25 -0300 In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.science.mathematics.categories:6253 Archived-At: What about "dangerous" rather than "evil"? (I also dislike religious and=20 moral terminology for mathematics. I specially dislike the terminology=20 "morally true", which I often hear, although I like the concept.) We frequently encounter dangerous situations in our mathematical paths,=20 no matter how hard we try to avoid them, but if we know what we are=20 doing it is ok. In this discussion about "evilness", what is important is to know that=20 lack of invariance under isomorphisms is dangerous (and why this is so),=20 and that you must consciously know how to properly proceed if your=20 definition happens to be not invariant, be it for necessity, lack of a=20 better idea, or mere convenience. MHE Joyal wrote: > Dear Juergen, >=20 > You wrote: >=20 >> Let me start by proposing "equi-unstable" and "precarious" as possible >> replacements for "evil". >=20 > I agree that we should explore various options. > Strickly speaking, there is no need for a new terminology > since "non-invariant" has been used in the past > and it is working pretty well. >=20 > Let me draw a list of potential names. > I have added a few: >=20 > non-invariant > equi-unstable > precarious > unstable > fragile > private >=20 > I invite everyone to contribute to the list. >=20 > Best, > AJ >=20 [For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]