FOM: categorical digression; the other one percent

[Andrej.Bauer@cs.cmu.edu]

Stephen G Simpson <simpson at math.psu.edu> writes:

> I propose we end the discussion of adjoint functors here.  It is off
> the topic of f.o.m.

I agree that we should end the discussion, but not because it's off
the topic of f.o.m (since that's what we're arguing about!) I wish to
end it because I get the feeling that it's pointless to argue with you
about this. There's something too objectivist about the way you talk
for my taste. I have presented my arguments--it's up to the readers to
form their opinions. I do not wish to tire the rest of f.o.m. list
with another Steve Simpson vs. over-zealous whistling-in-the-dark
category theorist "discussion".

Maybe next month we can argue whether "categorical logic" is a
misnomer and is really a branch of algebra.

And for the record: the only conclusion we (as in "together") came
from is that we better stop.

P.S. Thank you for explaining why you think children's graps of
concepts is relevant to f.o.m. I thought that was an interesting idea,
namely, that we can use children as a sort of heuristics to evaluate
the "foundamentalness" of concepts.


Andrej Bauer
Graduate Student in Pure and Applied Logic
School of Computer Science
Carnegie Mellon University
http://andrej.com