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.
Dear Andre, As someone who contributes to the nLab, let me assure you that opinions on the appropriateness of the word "evil" (in the sense being discussed here) also vary among workers in the nLab. Not all of the subscribers of this list may know about the nLab, but we are far from a homogeneous block. There are certainly regular nLab contributors who have voiced their displeasure with the word. I think you're right: the people who use this term are still a pretty small group. Nevertheless, sometimes slang terms do catch fire and become widespread, and evidently this has become a cause for alarm for some people here. While I won't take a position on the acceptability on the word myself, beyond saying that it's not likely to become part of my own language, I would at least like to defend its appearance in the nLab. To some extent, the nLab functions as a dictionary for those who work with categorical language (that is at least one of its functions). So one could view the people who edit the nLab as, in part, editors of a dictionary; as such, there is a kind of obligation to record uses of the living language and describe it as accurately as possible. Thus the function here is descriptive, not prescriptive (or proscriptive). That said, it's also true that reputable dictionaries will record how the word is received by speakers: some words may be described as 'vulgar' or 'offensive' (at least for some speakers), or as slang or substandard or whatever. So if a word like "evil" is offensive to some people here, it's arguably our responsibility to record that fact as well, and link to this discussion here. A case in point is the (I think tongue-in-cheek) expression "fascist functor". Some of you may recall that a "free functor" is to the "left" (in an adjoint string), so a "fascist functor" would be to the "right" in an adjoint string. It's a little jokey (as some people think "evil" is), and yet it still excites emotions, as we discovered in a recent nForum discussion. Something of those reactions were hinted at in the Lab, and I think we would do well to do the same with regard to "evil". Best, Todd ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joyal, André" <joyal.andre@uqam.ca> To: "Ruadhai" <ruadhai@gmail.com>; "Eduardo J. Dubuc" <edubuc@dm.uba.ar> Cc: "Categories list" <categories@mta.ca> Sent: Saturday, September 25, 2010 7:10 PM Subject: categories: RE : categories: subculture Dear All, I am displeased with the idea that terminology is purely conventional and that everything is acceptable. The "evil" terminology is promoted by a small group of peoples active in the nLab. It does not reflect a commun usage in the mathematical community. Best, André [For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]
Dear Todd, I thank you for your message. Let me first congratulate you and your collaborators for the excellent work that you are doing in the nLab. The nLab is both easy to access and of high quality. It is really innovative. It is becoming an essential tool for many researchers in mathematics. I use it frequently myself. I hope that the controversy about the term "evil" will eventually find a solution. Let me recall a story from Samuel Eilenberg. When he and Henri Cartan wrote "Homological algebra" they were very careful not to use a temporary substitute for a term, when the terminology was undecided. They left blank the spaces in the manuscript where the missing term was needed. Because if you use a temporary substitute, Eilenberg explained, it does not take long before it sticks to your brain and you find it completely natural, even if it is wrong. Best, André -------- Message d'origine-------- De: Todd Trimble [mailto:trimble1@optonline.net] Date: dim. 26/09/2010 23:06 À: Joyal, André Cc: Categories list Objet : Re: categories: subculture Dear Andre, As someone who contributes to the nLab, let me assure you that opinions on the appropriateness of the word "evil" (in the sense being discussed here) also vary among workers in the nLab. Not all of the subscribers of this list may know about the nLab, but we are far from a homogeneous block. There are certainly regular nLab contributors who have voiced their displeasure with the word. I think you're right: the people who use this term are still a pretty small group. Nevertheless, sometimes slang terms do catch fire and become widespread, and evidently this has become a cause for alarm for some people here. While I won't take a position on the acceptability on the word myself, beyond saying that it's not likely to become part of my own language, I would at least like to defend its appearance in the nLab. To some extent, the nLab functions as a dictionary for those who work with categorical language (that is at least one of its functions). So one could view the people who edit the nLab as, in part, editors of a dictionary; as such, there is a kind of obligation to record uses of the living language and describe it as accurately as possible. Thus the function here is descriptive, not prescriptive (or proscriptive). That said, it's also true that reputable dictionaries will record how the word is received by speakers: some words may be described as 'vulgar' or 'offensive' (at least for some speakers), or as slang or substandard or whatever. So if a word like "evil" is offensive to some people here, it's arguably our responsibility to record that fact as well, and link to this discussion here. A case in point is the (I think tongue-in-cheek) expression "fascist functor". Some of you may recall that a "free functor" is to the "left" (in an adjoint string), so a "fascist functor" would be to the "right" in an adjoint string. It's a little jokey (as some people think "evil" is), and yet it still excites emotions, as we discovered in a recent nForum discussion. Something of those reactions were hinted at in the Lab, and I think we would do well to do the same with regard to "evil". Best, Todd [For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]
On Sun, 26 Sep 2010, Todd Trimble wrote in part:
A case in point is the (I think tongue-in-cheek) expression "fascist functor". Some of you may recall that a "free functor" is to the "left" (in an adjoint string), so a "fascist functor" would be to the "right" in an adjoint string. It's a little jokey (as some people think "evil" is), and yet it still excites emotions, as we discovered in a recent nForum discussion. Something of those reactions were hinted at in the Lab, and I think we would do well to do the same with regard to "evil".
Tongue-in-cheek, indeed: but it goes back a long way. In his 1950 paper "Duality for groups", Saunders Mac Lane used the term "free object" for what we now call a projective object, and (in a footnote) suggested "fascist" for the dual notion (i.e. that of injective object). Peter Johnstone [For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]
participants (4)
-
Eduardo J. Dubuc -
Joyal, André -
Prof. Peter Johnstone -
Todd Trimble