Timeline for The unification of Mathematics via Topos Theory
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 4, 2022 at 13:44 | history | edited | Denis Serre | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 4 characters in body; edited title
|
| Mar 19, 2013 at 15:44 | comment | added | JSE | Somewhat ironically, I suppose, I voted to close this because I think that, given the recent interest in the topic, it deserves a better question. For instance, I think the question BCnrd asks in comments would be a good question -- describe an example of two theories which are associated to each other in Caramello's sense, and a known theorem on one side which thereby implies ("without any creative effort," though this of course ignores Caramello's own effort!) a corresponding theorem on the other side. | |
| Mar 18, 2013 at 14:42 | answer | added | Chandan Singh Dalawat | timeline score: 23 | |
| Jun 28, 2010 at 20:11 | answer | added | Marco Benini | timeline score: 13 | |
| Jun 27, 2010 at 19:46 | comment | added | Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine | Why are there suddenly so many straw men being thrown around? Yes, this statement is trivially true if taken to cover any new theorems, and almost certainly false if very specific well-known theorems are asked for. But the original intent is clearly somewhere between: how many interesting non-trivial theorems are there (none? some? or many, as Caramello claims?) that can be read straight off via topos-theoretic dictionaries from theorems in other areas? And this is surely an interesting and reasonably precise question! | |
| Jun 26, 2010 at 6:02 | comment | added | Pete L. Clark | One doesn't need to know anything about topos theory to know that the claim "One can generate a huge number of new results in any mathematical field without any creative effort" is trivially true if the new results are not required to be of interest to anyone and trivially false otherwise: almost by definition "creative effort" is that which produces interesting, new theorems. I found the paper (including its title) to be rather over the top. Probably others here feel similarly. But it shouldn't reflect negatively on the OP -- he just asked for our opinion on this curious statement. | |
| Jun 25, 2010 at 23:27 | comment | added | algori | To those voting to close: honestly, people! Whether or not the question sounds polemical to you, there are already some interesting answers below and perhaps more are coming. That's what matters. | |
| Jun 25, 2010 at 22:45 | answer | added | Timothy Chow | timeline score: 91 | |
| Jun 25, 2010 at 16:24 | answer | added | Peter Selinger | timeline score: 41 | |
| Jun 23, 2010 at 13:58 | comment | added | Charles Matthews | Being able to create a huge number of new dishes doesn't make one a chef. | |
| Jun 23, 2010 at 13:37 | comment | added | Andrey Rekalo | I'd love to see the first theorem on the Navier-Stokes equations proved by means of the topos theory... | |
| Jun 23, 2010 at 13:33 | comment | added | Roy Maclean | I think it is focused actually. I'm looking for experts in Topos theory to give an objective assessment of the paper's claims which sound very great. And there's already an answer below. | |
| Jun 23, 2010 at 13:23 | answer | added | Neel Krishnaswami | timeline score: 33 | |
| Jun 23, 2010 at 13:06 | comment | added | Robin Chapman | Another unfocused and polemical question :-( | |
| Jun 23, 2010 at 13:03 | history | asked | Roy Maclean | CC BY-SA 2.5 |