Re: Why should a mathematician be interested in QED?

• Mail folder: QED
• Next message: Majordomo: "SUBSCRIBE qed"
• Previous message: David McAllester: "Why should a mathematician be interested in QED?"
• In-reply-to: David McAllester: "Why should a mathematician be interested in QED?"

Date: Thu, 22 Apr 93 10:24:27 EDT
From: mumford@math.harvard.edu (david mumford)
Message-id: <9304221424.AA05826@math.harvard.edu>
To: dam@ai.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Why should a mathematician be interested in QED?
Cc: qed@mcs.anl.gov, beeson@cats.ucsc.edu
Sender: qed-owner
Precedence: bulk

Dear David (Mc),

The idea behind Bourbaki, viz.

  "The hope was that a fairly small
  simple set of basic structures were the basis of most research."

seems to me to have a lot to do with whether qed will be successful. If 
something like this is not true, or if true, not heeded, one generates
an archipelago of little formal theories that only the true devotees will
understand: and no one will be able to add to the corpus without
knowing which fragments apply where. Of course ZFC or Ontic accomodates
both styles. The question is -- does human cognition accomodate both
equally well and does the style of professional interfacing between scientists
accomodate both syles? I would argue that qed must have a master plan
in the Bourbaki style.

David (Mu)