FOM: categorical digression; the other one percent Andrej.Bauer at
Tue Feb 22 12:34:41 EST 2000

Stephen G Simpson <simpson at> 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

More information about the FOM mailing list