From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.science.mathematics.categories/3140 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: James Stasheff Newsgroups: gmane.science.mathematics.categories Subject: Re: cracks and pots Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 10:21:24 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1241019117 7407 80.91.229.2 (29 Apr 2009 15:31:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:31:57 +0000 (UTC) To: categories@mta.ca Original-X-From: rrosebru@mta.ca Wed Mar 22 22:58:03 2006 -0400 Return-path: Envelope-to: categories-list@mta.ca Delivery-date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 22:58:03 -0400 Original-Received: from Majordom by mailserv.mta.ca with local (Exim 4.52) id 1FMFxq-0004Ya-0S for categories-list@mta.ca; Wed, 22 Mar 2006 22:54:18 -0400 In-Reply-To: Original-Sender: cat-dist@mta.ca Precedence: bulk X-Keywords: X-UID: 86 Original-Lines: 28 Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.science.mathematics.categories:3140 Archived-At: I think knot theory is particularly helpful here but I'll let Yetter and Freyd reply further. Jim Stasheff jds@math.upenn.edu Home page: www.math.unc.edu/Faculty/jds On Thu, 16 Mar 2006, Vaughan Pratt wrote: > Category theory, and for that matter modern (as opposed to elementary) > algebra, is to mathematics as mathematics is to physics, and for that > matter to computer science. Whereas mathematics organizes reasoning > about the phenomena studied by physicists and computer scientists, > algebra and category theory perform a similar function for mathematics. > > In any setting organization is desirable, and arguably necessary on > occasion. But the use of algebra and category theory to organize > physics and computer science is a double whammy here. One should > therefore be doubly sympathetic of those physicists and computer > scientists who want to know what substantive contribution is being made > to their subject and can't evaluate the answers because they are one if > not two levels removed from the necessary abstractions. > > Vaughan Pratt > >