Peter Selinger wrote:
Dear Eduardo,
thanks, it seems that I have misunderstood. I thought Andre was referring to the people using the word "evil" forming a subculture within category theory. It didn't occur to me that he was referring to category theory forming a subculture within mathematics.
Well same to me, but the other way around, it didn't occur to me that Andre was referring to the people using the word "evil" forming a subculture within category theory. I'll see him soon and ask him.
If the latter is true, I don't see how the term "evil" has anything to do with it.
No, it is not obviously at the origin, but contributes to maintain ghettoized the category theory community (not category theory, which is in a renaissance)
Surely every discipline, whether a subculture or not, has its own concepts and terminology? Also, if it is indeed true that category theory is ghettoized within mathematics, this must have been accomplished several decades ago. I actually don't think that it is still true today. At least most younger colleagues don't seem to think so.
Yes, it is less and less true, but unluckily the renaissance of category theory is being done elsewhere than in the CT meetings.
It is interesting that you bring up the term "general nonsense". I am familiar with the term, and it has never occurred to me to be offended by it. I have always understood, perhaps wrongly, the term to have a technical meaning: nonsense = without meaning, in the same way that axioms are "without meaning" - the meaning is in specific examples.
Well, I never felt offended, but almost all the time I hear that term it was used as a bad and negative qualification. As something lacking any meaning at all. Good axioms have a lot of meaning in themselves. For example, the notion of grothendieck topology, just axioms, acquired its own meaning, and become an example for more general theories. Of course, same for groups, rings, categories, etc etc. It has been always like that with good (no nonsense) axiomatics, including its terminology. General nonsense means something very abstract and meaningless without any hope to acquire a meaning.
So understood the noun "nonsense" to be synonymous with the adjective "abstract", i.e., separated from concrete examples, or from concrete meaning.
As I said, what it is abstract, become concrete with time, as long it was not nonsense.
I have heard the term more often used by category theorists than by non-category theorists, but perhaps that is because I mostly talk to category theorists :)
Not, it is because some category theorists felt (unjustifiably) accused of producing nonsense. We should wonder why ?
Best wishes, -- Peter
Best wishes Eduardo.
Eduardo J. Dubuc wrote:
Thanks for your msage, best wishes, Eduardo.
some brief comments:
Peter Selinger wrote:
Grandfather clause:
* an exemption based on circumstances existing prior to the adoption of some policy. [...]
well, I did not know that "Grandfather clause" was an existing English expression to mean what you quote above.
Ghetto: I know the meaning of ghetto, it happens that some times in
colloquial parlance it has a more vague connotation and means something isolated and ignored by the rest of the community. And this is what has been happening with the category community within the large mathematical community.
"segregated mode of living or working that results from bias or stereotyping" is closer to this, you know, the "general nonsense" expression used by many mathematicians to refer to category theory.
Subculture:
* a social group within a national culture that has distinctive patterns of behavior and beliefs. I don't think the concept of a subculture has a negative connotation - except perhaps for those who disapprove of the beliefs in question. Well, if a subculture is unable to communicate with the rest, it is very bad if recognition is important for the subculture. I think that recognition by the mathematical community is important for category theory, and to form a subculture which utilize its own terminology does not help recognition.