Re: Comments on a wikipedia article on a Timeline of Category theory

[Messing <messing@math.umn.edu>]

Concerning Fred Linton's comment about Wikipedia entries in general and
Andre's comment about the categories timeline entry in prticular:

1) The 11th edition of the Britanica, with entries written by ad signed
by Bertrand Russell and other philosophical and intellectual luminaries
is justly renowned.  The French analogue, the Enclyclopedie Universalis
with many of the mathematical articles written by and signed by Jean
Dieudonne is equally distinguished (see in particular Dieudonne's entry
on analytic number theory).  That Wikipedia can not compare is obvious.
     Nevertheless, in my view, it has its uses.  While the entries on
etale or crystalline cohomology were not written by Grothendieck, Artin,
Deligne or Berthelot, they contain for non-experts some insights and
supply references.  The idiom "let the buyer beware" is apt here.

2) I agree with Andre.  An imperfect timeline can be corrected and
improved upon, but it is an initial effort.  By definition, any timeline
is a skeletal outline and, by its very nature, can never be a definitive
historical text concerning whatever it concerns itself with.

Let me take a specific example not mentioned in the Wikipedia timeline.
    In the late 1970's Goresky-Macpherson invented the theory of perverse
sheaves.  This theory was further developed by many others and in
particular, Beilinson-Berstein-Deligne in Asterisque 100.  What is "well
known" to those who have looked at this text's introduction is that
Gabber was to be a fourth author of this monograph, but he refused to
let his name appear, because he thought that the other three authors
were not sufficiently careful with regard to (technical) foundational
questions.  As I do not know who created the current Wikipedia timeline,
I do not know if this individual knows or cares what a perverse sheaf is.

Bill Messing


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