On 21 Jan 2013, at 14:58, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

On 20 Jan 2013, at 18:53, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 19 Jan 2013, at 13:42, Telmo Menezes wrote:


Ok. That mode of reasoning is weirdly appealing to me. Even Bohr's take.

It is common in algebra, logic and exploited in category theory. As long as we identify identity and morphism it is OK, in the applied fields. Don't confuse the price of a glass of beer with the set of all glass of beers with the same price :)

Of course, I meant "As long as we DON'T identify identity and morphism it is OK, in the applied fields.".

Got it!

I was sure you did. It is my new typo error. I forget negation! I think they can be guessed from context, but sometimes I quote such error so as to remind people to be cautious, and to take the context into account. Sorry for adding work.



You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to