From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.science.mathematics.categories/7101 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Valeria de Paiva Newsgroups: gmane.science.mathematics.categories Subject: Re: Dualities arising via pairs of schizophrenic objects Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 05:39:31 -0800 Message-ID: Reply-To: Valeria de Paiva NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1323305551 4133 80.91.229.12 (8 Dec 2011 00:52:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 00:52:31 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Categories list To: Dusko Pavlovic Original-X-From: majordomo@mlist.mta.ca Thu Dec 08 01:52:27 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: gsmc-categories@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from smtpx.mta.ca ([138.73.1.4]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RYSDm-0005oF-EG for gsmc-categories@m.gmane.org; Thu, 08 Dec 2011 01:52:22 +0100 Original-Received: from mlist.mta.ca ([138.73.1.63]:50432) by smtpx.mta.ca with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1RYSBt-0007aw-2I; Wed, 07 Dec 2011 20:50:25 -0400 Original-Received: from majordomo by mlist.mta.ca with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RYSBr-0005Cg-Az for categories-list@mlist.mta.ca; Wed, 07 Dec 2011 20:50:23 -0400 Precedence: bulk Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.science.mathematics.categories:7101 Archived-At: Dusko, This time I cannot tell whether you're joking or not... Now I must say that I totally agree with Tom Leinster (and others) that the usage of "schizophrenic object" is in *very* bad taste and does no good to anyone. (this kind of stuff is acceptable for third graders. only.). Best regards, Valeria On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 9:48 PM, Dusko Pavlovic wrote: > i agree that we should not use the term "schizophrenic object" in category theory. > > for one thing, it sounds like some sort of a metaphor. we should never use metaphors. > for another thing, it does not sound serious. it might suggest that we are sometimes joking. > > i propose that we use the term *bipolar object*. > > for one thing, it sounds more mathematical. > for another thing, in psychiatry they only talk about subjects, not objects, so there is no confusion. > > my 2c, > -- dusko [For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]