FOM: category theory, cohomology, group theory, and f.o.m.

Stephen G Simpson simpson at
Tue Feb 22 00:36:42 EST 2000

Reply to Todd Wilson's posting of Feb 21, 2000.

 > I would propose that we acknowledge that the intuitions of
 > category theorists concerning the fundamental nature of their subject,
 > even in the absence of tangible results vindicating these intuitions,
 > need not be a "mass hallucination", and instead make an honest attempt
 > to discover whether there really is anything to them.  For what it's
 > worth, my own intuition tells me that there is, but I am not any
 > closer to making this intuition explicit than the rest of the category
 > theorists.

OK.  I think there can be a reasonable compromise along these lines.
Category theorists have a strong intuition that adjoint functors are
``everywhere'', and I respect that intuition and the wealth of
examples that they adduce and would like to know what rigorous
principle underlies it.  Still, I think we have to also agree that at
the present time the foundational interest of adjoint functors is far
from being well established.

-- Steve

More information about the FOM mailing list