David Yetter wrote:
Fellow categorists,
Jim Stasheff has been appealing to me to comment on the role of category theory in knot theory in the context of the ‘cracks and pots’ thread.
[lengthy quotations omitted...] Hi David, then, i again, to precise my thoughts. Knot theory is trivially a good thing. That category has to do with it does not surprise anybody reading this thread. You can relax... Personnaly, and as a matter of taste, i would not put for instance polymorphic types is the same bag. But... ok, say. Now that theoretical physics, computer science, phylo., a mix of those, or whatever? , is used to justify poor "categorical" work is, in my view, an existing problem. More or less everyone is conscious of it (come on!...) but so far that has not been publically debated. I am happy that it happens now. So I am sorry not share the enthusiastic mood that everything is good in maths and I wish that our colleagues "categorists" take categories... humm... seriously. Again, i should not be the one who says that. Best, Vincent. PS: since you averted your book - can we get a good price?