Dear Categorists - pjf wrote: Jim Holt wrote in his "Diary" on Slate, 2000--11--27
Category theory is a ridiculously abstract framework that takes all the meaning out of mathematics.
In his review of Michael Harris's "Mathematics Without Apologies: Portrait of a Problematic Vocation" (Princeton University Press, 2015) Holt writes (The New York Review of Books, 2015--12--03):
...Grothendieck made [category theory] sing. Between 1958 and 1970, he used category theory to create novel structures of unexampled richness.
Given the first quote, I wonder if Holt is making a subtle dig at Grothendieck here, hinting that he doesn't consider enough examples! I suppose you all know this joke: One striking characteristic of Grothendieck’s mode of thinking is that it
seemed to rely so little on examples. This can be seen in the legend of the so-called “Grothendieck prime”. In a mathematical conversation, someone suggested to Grothendieck that they should consider a particular prime number. “You mean an actual number?” Grothendieck asked. The other person replied, yes, an actual prime number. Grothendieck suggested, “All right, take 57.”
http://www.ams.org/notices/200410/fea-grothendieck-part2.pdf Best, jb [For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]