Unexampled richness

[John Baez <baez@math.ucr.edu>]

Dear Categorists -

pjf wrote:

Jim Holt wrote in his "Diary" on Slate, 2000--11--27
>
>    Category theory is a ridiculously abstract framework that takes all
>    the meaning out of mathematics.
>
> In his review of Michael Harris's "Mathematics Without Apologies:
> Portrait of a Problematic Vocation" (Princeton University Press, 2015)
> Holt writes (The New York Review of Books, 2015--12--03):
>
>     ...Grothendieck made [category theory] sing. Between 1958 and 1970,
>    he used category theory to create novel structures of unexampled
>    richness.
>

Given the first quote, I wonder if Holt is making a subtle dig at
Grothendieck here, hinting that he doesn't consider enough examples!

I suppose you all know this joke:

One striking characteristic of Grothendieck’s mode of thinking is that it
> seemed to rely so little on examples. This can be seen in the legend of the
> so-called “Grothendieck prime”. In a mathematical conversation, someone
> suggested to Grothendieck that they should consider a particular prime
> number. “You mean an actual number?” Grothendieck asked. The other person
> replied, yes, an actual prime number. Grothendieck suggested, “All right,
> take 57.”
>

http://www.ams.org/notices/200410/fea-grothendieck-part2.pdf

Best,
jb


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