Most of the present generation of mathematicians were brought up using sets, which are more than adequate for most of maths. Category theory in essence is a generalised notion of sets. Maybe the next generation of mathematicians will be more comfortable with category theory?
On Fri, Aug 08, 2008 at 01:48:34PM -0600, Marcus G. Daniels wrote: > Nicholas Thompson wrote: > > So, I am beginning to wonder, is it possible that Category Theory is one of > > those intellectual developments that has been roundly rejected by the > > mainstream, but whose language has crept into the mainstream to a very > > great degree? > > > Type systems of programming languages (esp. like ML and Haskell) have > roots in category theory. > Also dimensional analysis in physics is a similar but independent > concept. What does it actually mean to call it rejected? Could it be > people just moved on to more refined ideas? > > Marcus > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
