2010/5/12 John Baez <baez@math.ucr.edu>: wrote
Colin's comment didn't seem cryptic to me - let me guess what he meant.
Thanks. I did not mean it as cryptic.
I thought he meant:
3) If you don't take the prevailing meaning of words seriously, you're likely to talk in ways that people won't understand, unless they happen to already know everything you're trying to say.
Yes, and also taking the choice of new or revised terminology seriously when it seems called for, just as this thread has been doing. But the problem is not only to entice people unwilling to learn new terminology. There is also the problem of telling where change truly is needed and what change. I do not offer this as a new thought but just to keep it in the discussion. I will say, for my part, I have no objection to learning a new system of terminology for higher categories, or even a couple of new systems of terminology. But as an outsider with some curiosity, I have the impression that as of this time I'd need to learn quite few systems to get much into the field. That can happen, or course, but I am glad to see people taking these choices of words seriously. best, Colin [For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]