categories.org.au
Sign In Sign Up
Manage this list Sign In Sign Up

Keyboard Shortcuts

Thread View

  • j: Next unread message
  • k: Previous unread message
  • j a: Jump to all threads
  • j l: Jump to MailingList overview
thread

None

jim stasheff

16 Mar 2006 16 Mar '06
1:58 a.m.

To categories@mta.ca Subject: categories: Re: cracks and pots In-Reply-To: <E1FJIWr-0003u8-D2@mailserv.mta.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: cat-dist@mta.ca Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 60 Marta Bunge wrote:

...

I was trying to elicit an open response from those who *do* know about the value (or lack of it) of categorical string theory. In particular, I would like to have an answer to this question. Why is it that anything which even remotedly claims to have applications to physics (particularly string theory) is given (what I view as) uncritical support in our circles?

Best, Marta

It's not so much the applications that seduce some of us but rather the *new* structures the physicists suggest that turn out to have neat mathemaical, e.g. categorical, aspects. e.g quantum groups jim

0 0
Reply
Sign in to reply online Use email software

Back to the thread

Back to the list

MailmanLists