Timeline for Are there non-categorical notions in topos theory?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 4, 2013 at 15:58 | comment | added | Joel David Hamkins | David, thanks very much! That is exactly what I had hoped for. I'm glad to hear that this terminology is on the way out. | |
| Apr 4, 2013 at 15:49 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | Re JDH's question: the more neutral term adopted by the nLab is "principle of equivalence". It is indeed a useful general theoretical principle, but there are significant cases where the rule is sensibly broken (I mean broken even on the theoretical level, not just the practical or calculational level where the rule is frequently broken as a convenience). Understanding these issues is tricky enough; I agree a loaded term like "evil" doesn't help anyone's understanding. (It was a joke that got out of hand.) | |
| Apr 4, 2013 at 15:34 | comment | added | Andrej Bauer | A better title would be: "Is topos theory non-categorical?" ;-) | |
| Apr 4, 2013 at 15:28 | vote | accept | David Carchedi | ||
| Apr 4, 2013 at 15:21 | comment | added | François G. Dorais | David, I don't think that reasoning works, unless you also believe that category theory has no applications outside itself. | |
| Apr 4, 2013 at 15:12 | comment | added | David Carchedi | I edited the title. I was merely following the terminology to which I was exposed (yes through the internet). Anyway, from my understanding, the terminology "evil" is only applied to notions which are from category theory, so I think there is little notion of offending non-category theorists. | |
| Apr 4, 2013 at 15:10 | history | edited | David Carchedi | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited title
|
| Apr 4, 2013 at 11:47 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | You have to understand that "evil" was originally just an in-joke, originating from UC Riverside I think. The regrettable thing is how it broke into public discourse, probably mostly via the internet, so that the tongue-in-cheekiness was no longer so apparent. There was furious backlash against it and endless discussion about it within categorical circles (especially from older generations of category theorists). More discussion here: ncatlab.org/nlab/show/principle+of+equivalence | |
| Apr 4, 2013 at 7:22 | answer | added | Zhen Lin | timeline score: 20 | |
| Apr 4, 2013 at 3:11 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | (That comment not directed against David C in any way) | |
| Apr 4, 2013 at 3:10 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | While I don't mind the "evil" terminology quite as much as JDH, it always reminds me of (a) Bill Bailey's "Scale of Evil" (b) how much I liked learning category theory from someone who avoided overtones of That Was Wrong Now This Is Right | |
| Apr 4, 2013 at 3:02 | comment | added | Joel David Hamkins | I have always found the "evil" terminology to be unfortunate. This regrettable terminology seems to hinder and sometimes to halt discussion between category theorists and those outside category theory by burdening the conversation with unnecessarily confrontational morally-loaded language. Why not adopt a more neutral and descriptive term? | |
| Apr 4, 2013 at 1:35 | history | asked | David Carchedi | CC BY-SA 3.0 |