Skip to the Main Content
November 30, 2008
TrackBack URL for this Entry: https://golem.ph.utexas.edu/cgi-bin/MT-3.0/dxy-tb.fcgi/1865
Some Related Entries
25 Comments & 0 Trackbacks
Re: Tom Leinster in The Reasoner
We did the interview in one ‘take’, as it were, so I didn’t have time to specify what was meant by ‘oblique’.
I meant to suggest that Tom’s path was rather unusual, off the beaten track, avoiding the better trodden paths of representation theory, homotopy theory, algebaraic geometry, etc.
I was wondering about linking this to the oddness of some forms of British graduate education. I have the impression you’re left to your own devices rather more than had you been at a US grad school, Chicago say.
My own Part III education was a quirky mix of modules, including John Conway giving his own personal take on representation theory.
Re: Tom Leinster in The Reasoner
I had the benefit of both systems =
Princeton and Oxford. cf. two theses
which appeared in print as
Homotopy Associativity of H-spaces I and II
Depending on your supervisor at Princeton, you could also be left pretty much on your own or at the meercy of fellow grad students, though there were courses and Topology seminars - at the U and at the IAS.
Biggest contrast was in preparation of the final document - Princeton had standard US requirements like paper and margins, etc. Oxford required the thesis be bound but as to format therein, my last superviosr when I asked responded: well, if you are going to submit a sonnet, it should have 14 lines!
Posted by:
jim stasheff on November 30, 2008 8:57 PM | Permalink
| Reply to this
Re: Tom Leinster in The Reasoner
It was a very nice interview; thanks.
Regarding whether category theory interacts with fluid mechanics: I thought I had heard somewhere that for a number of years, Eduardo Dubuc was actively involved in the study of fluid mechanics (or something like that). But I haven’t been able to corroborate that independently.
Re: Tom Leinster in The Reasoner
Yeps, great interview, gives me lots of ideas for how to speak about higher category theory to a broader audience. I too was caught out by the abrupt ending, and was quite surprised (in a good way!) to see Tom suddenly talking about the problem of the omnipotence of God.
Posted by:
Bruce Bartlett on December 1, 2008 6:14 PM | Permalink
| Reply to this
Re: Tom Leinster in The Reasoner
in re: the omnipotence of God
since it’s a question of logical inconsistency that’s invoked,
wasn’t something like this debate
in the earliest univesities?
Posted by:
jim stasheff on December 1, 2008 11:32 PM | Permalink
| Reply to this
Re: Tom Leinster in The Reasoner
It was thoroughly hashed over in the Middle Ages, though perhaps the simplest solution — there is no omnipotent being! — was overlooked.
Re: Tom Leinster in The Reasoner
My usual response to the “too big to lift” question is: “Lift above what?”. The whole question appears to be ill defined.
Oh, and is the collection of all things an Omnipotent being can do a set or a proper class?
Posted by:
Mark Biggar on December 2, 2008 12:40 AM | Permalink
| Reply to this
Re: Tom Leinster in The Reasoner
I wonder if there’s more than a hint of similarity between the anti-omnipotence argument and the argument of Baer against Finsler’s notion of a maximal system. Each wants to say that there’s a contradiction in the assumption that there can be a maximal thing. Just as Finsler argues that Baer’s construction is invalid, we have Mark here questioning the lifting construction. John is being Baer by suggesting the no omnipotent being position.
An analogy wouldn’t be so surprising if we remember that Cantor held that there was an absolute infinite far beyond anything we paltry humans could attain with the powerset construction. He saw that absolute infinity as some aspect of God.
Must dash off now to begin my treatise – God from the coalgebraic point of view.
Re: Tom Leinster in The Reasoner
And maybe the devil from the algebraic point of view? Does this mean that analysis is God and algebra is the devil? Some other guy thought geometry was God, but he agreed that algebra is the devil.
Posted by:
James on December 3, 2008 1:42 AM | Permalink
| Reply to this
Re: Tom Leinster in The Reasoner
Some other guy being Alain Connes, perhaps? Cf. this paper.
Re: Tom Leinster in The Reasoner
Since Connes’ vision of NCG relies heavily on finding the algebraic dualizations of geometrical/topological/measurable notions, I’m surprised if he actually said that in all seriousness…
Besides, in the (interesting) paper you link to, a quick skim suggests that said phrase only occurs as as a section title. Isn’t it a quote of, or nod to, someone else? Weyl? Weil?
Re: Tom Leinster in The Reasoner
I thought it was Hilbert, but I’m not sure.
Re: Tom Leinster in The Reasoner
Weyl perhaps:
In these days the angel of topology and the devil of abstract algebra fight for the soul of every individual discipline of mathematics.
Re: Tom Leinster in The Reasoner
This may be a good excuse to repeat a lesson I was taught about by Todd, and which I am very fond of:
This vague
duality
Geometry | Algebra
which Connes mentions on p. 6 is what Lawvere identified in exact terms as the duality between Space and Quantity, namely that between presheaves and co-presheaves.
With this in hand, further nice things follow. For instance, regarding Connes’ section 3.2 titled “Cohomology”. In regard of the above Space/Quantity-duality there is the following profound statement to be made:
we can ask if Staces=presheaves “glue”. The failure of that is measured by cohomology.
we can ask if Quantities=co-presheaves “co-glue”. The failure of that is measured by homotopy.
Re: Tom Leinster in The Reasoner
Fred Almgren in response to a serious question:
bubbles are homology and ballons are homotopy
or maybe it was the dual
Posted by:
jim stasheff on December 3, 2008 2:06 PM | Permalink
| Reply to this
Re: Tom Leinster in The Reasoner
Thanks for the link
I had hesitated to say Medieval being unsure of my time frame. The portrait indicates Muslim philosophers also considered the paradox? How about the classical Greeks?
cf G and S: a pretty taste for paradox
Posted by:
jim stasheff on December 3, 2008 2:01 PM | Permalink
| Reply to this
Re: Tom Leinster in The Reasoner
Since the ancient Greeks weren’t monotheistic, it’s hard to imagine them taking the possibility of an omnipotent being seriously enough to worry about the paradoxes such a thing would lead to. A paradox is only fun if you believe the assumptions.
Coalgebra and Modal Logic
I just felt the need to point out the relationship between modal logic and coalgebras. As modal logic is seen as the logic of coalgebras. Modal logic is not only important in computer science but ever since Kripke used his semantics to form an argument against materialism, modal logic has been of great interest to philosophy.
So the question is.. what is the coalgebraic point of view on the mind-body problem?
Posted by:
Paul on December 2, 2008 9:02 PM | Permalink
| Reply to this
Obvious answer; Re: Coalgebra and Modal Logic
“… what is the coalgebraic point of view on the mind-body problem?”
Dual to the algebraic point of view on the comind-cobody problem? Or is the structure twisted so that it is dual to the cobody-comind problem? Or perhaps the comind-cobody coproblem?
Re: Coalgebra and Modal Logic
What relationship between modal logic and coalgebras do you mean? Certainly the modal operator ‘necessity’ can be described in terms of comonads, but it sounds like you’re suggesting some other connection: what does the statement “modal logic is seen as the logic of coalgebras” refer to?
Re: Coalgebra and Modal Logic
No doubt we’ll need to read Modal Logics are Coalgebraic.
Re: Coalgebra and Modal Logic
I’d also recommend Algebras and Coalgebras by Yde Venema from the Handbook of Modal Logic.
Posted by:
Paul on December 3, 2008 8:13 PM | Permalink
| Reply to this
Re: Coalgebra and Modal Logic
Great! Thank you, David and Paul.
Re: Coalgebra and Modal Logic
Barwise and Moss discuss this subject in “Vicious Circles”. It’s a really fun book as well.
Re: Tom Leinster in The Reasoner
Great interview! When it suddenly ended and the subject turned to the omnipotence of God, for a second I thought we’d be hearing Tom’s view on this issue.
I’m not quite sure what David meant by the word ‘oblique’. It’s actually an interesting issue, how we (and Tom in particular) reconcile our interest in -categories with our interest in various other specific subjects. I remember being disappointed at first when, after writing his book on -categories and higher operads, Tom ‘suddenly switched’ to working on fractals. But now I see how nicely it fits into Tom’s broader interest in categorification, and I think it was a very good move to make.