FOM: Boolean rings; moving on toward interesting f.o.m. issues

[Vaughan Pratt]

I answered offline Steve's most recent posting under the above heading.
His last paragraph however was not about Boolean anything so I can answer
it online with a clear conscience and a rapier wit (I wish :).

>Once I have forced Pratt and the other category theorists

It used to be that if you defended a communist you were branded one.
Nowadays if you defend a category theorist you're branded one.
(Those familiar with Bill Lawvere's economics will spot the in joke.)

>to admit
>crucial technical distinctions of this kind, then perhaps we can move
>on to more interesting foundational questions: foundational
>motivation, general intellectual interest, why algebraic logic is not
>the same as f.o.m., etc.

Where is the intellectual interest in prejudged questions?  (This is
not a joke.)

Vaughan Pratt