Discussions (contd.)

0:00 On one occasion, I was at home with 29 other people, and they were taking it for a walk, and I thought, I thought, I thought, ten days in a row, because we're moving here, almost, we're moving here. Why not? I've had a little bath in here a couple of days, and both days, I've had a bath in here a couple of days, and it's done, it's all alive, and I like it, I like it, it's very, very, very good. There are a number of different universes, aren't there?

2:30 Thank you for watching. Some people argue in the newspapers about the world, and there was a tiny bit of it. It doesn't surprise me that far. I always thought people were incredibly adamant and went back to the question. Why? Because to me, I can't do the balance. What I've been trying to do, and I wouldn't have done it, and I would try to do the balance of all kinds of people, and I couldn't do it. I'm surprised to know that's not medicine. Well, it doesn't surprise me that's not medicine. No, no, I didn't surprise you. Not in the main line of the book, but I'm not.

5:00 No, that is not the case. No, they are all the same. But they are the same. The first year, 1967-1968, my wife and I went to the Seinfeld 9-year anniversary event, and the mayor of Seinfeld called a big meeting for the first time in a year. And then, the local department, the department of science and technology, the department of science and technology, the department of science and technology, the department of science and technology, the department of science and technology, the department of science and technology, the department of science and technology, the department of science and technology,

7:30 And I was going back and forth between them. Then after a while, I came across one of the items in my bag. It was something like this. It was a bag. It was a bag. It was a bag. It was a bag. It was a bag. It was a bag. It was a bag. It was a bag. Some will be open and some will be closed. There are a lot of ideas. I would like to know what they are. I would like to know what they are. I would like to know what they are. I would like to know what they are. I would like to know what they are. I would like to know what they are. I would like to know what they are. I would like to know what they are. I would like to know what they are. I would like to know what they are. I would like to know what they are. I would like to know what they are. You know I've written them down, right? I've written them down. I've written them down. I've written them down. I've written them down. I've written them down. I've written them down. I've written them down. I've written them down. I've written them down. I've written them down. I've written them down. I've written them down. But who's in the pilot seat?

10:00 Oh, Colin, hi! We were just about to run out the white flag, but I think we can sum it up a little bit more. Oh, well, we're so... Now you're here. Thank you for your attention. There's even a smaller case, like my driver's education used in high school, kids could drive. He'd been a baller in World War II. The one that I remember best is kids driving along the road, Mr. Dante's actually at the country road, all of a sudden, BAM! Mr. Dante slams on the brake, and he hits the front of his car. A milk truck goes, and Mr. Dante goes, now you didn't see that car spin, did you?

12:30 Oh, crikey, isn't he putting on his head all the time? I think I can just get back to him with a beer before we're turning in. Yeah, I think you really have been. Yeah, hi. Well, now Colin's still here. I'll have a beer with him. You do have him. You can give him a talk. So the plan is that we're going to go and have dinner with, sort of lunch, I should say, with John tomorrow, with John Bateson, who's going to give us a talk, and Philip is going to comment, and then we'll come to work on some of the stuff that's going to be going on. Gonzalo's here, but he's in the other hotel in the... Beacon Hill. Beacon Hill Inn. Well, the only person who's still to come now is Jean-Pierre, who is definitely coming tomorrow. And Lou Crane, who was supposed to get in tonight, has come and had a little talk with me. Well, last time I checked, he still hasn't arrived, but he's late here now. I don't know who he is. Oh, OK. Well, he's really safe. He's still happy to be here. I'll see you at the end of the morning. Thanks very much for keeping me coming on the journey. See you.

15:00 I made all my connections, but only because it didn't seem like they were all out there. I forgot the main name. Oh, um, um... I'm trying to find the organizers of those meetings in Maine, on the island. Yeah, he was, uh... Don't forget it. Uh, don't forget it. I got an email about it all from David Thorpe with a link to the proceedings of the previous meeting. Thank you for your attention. They were at it, weren't they? A jazz, can you imagine, a high school combo, I mean a large, about 16 strong high school combo with about four rival drummers, so you didn't get any sleep. We didn't think we were getting too high, I thought you were going to say about sleeping. We have a terrific meeting in Seville that day in and day out has been a great one to talk to people, really good to talk to people, and one of the things that I wanted to talk to you about is the fact that Seville runs a bar because people have their wedding day, and in Seville runs a bar every night, every night. There was a wedding day. I'm cracking the drum!

17:30 The Castanets. I served in Madrid just last week. They had a good philosophy of mathematics. Jean-Pierre Gay. It was interesting being at that university. I'd never been on the campus of the University of St. Paul, but we were actually in the philosophy faculty building, which 75 years ago was right in the front line during the Siege of the Bridge and the Spanish Civil War, and was actually held by the International Brigade for three years against the fascists. And you can still see the top part of the building. And he says, you know, what we do with modifiers is we associate a variance with a model, like, for example, the category of definable types of functions. He's not going to not say it, because it's the way we think about it, but I know that none of his friends want to say it. Yeah. Some, for example, some modifiers, the response they don't take to them is, well, you shouldn't if you don't want to. Thank you for watching.

20:00 You know that's what it is. What makes it a good idea not to say it? You could put it there. Prejudice against capitalism. You can be clear about that. Yeah, I'm not offended here. The assertion is that this involves logic. We're at least first in the market now. They're all just involved in logic. They're checking with it. Yeah, yeah. I don't know. Almost all the models are very famous. They trust each other. Oh, yeah. Well, I mean, there's a video article on the category of life in the book theory, and there's a video article on the category of life in the book theory, and there's a video article on the category of life in the book theory, and there's a video article on the category of life in the book theory, So, I think part of the reason why it's always a trap is because it's not strong enough. Okay. You know that part of that thing, right? Oh, yeah. It's started. Why do they call it a tantrum? It's a rubber tantrum. It's a rubber tantrum. It's a rubber tantrum. It's a rubber tantrum.

22:30 Thank you for watching this video. And yet at the same time, everybody was stolen by results. So talk about wanting to have it both ways. Everybody's stolen my ideas. He told me I had a chance to do him for lunch. I kind of blocked him in at the end of the table, but I thought I had to do it for about an hour and a half. He's crazy. And one of them, though, I am, of course, all of him, Richard Patterson, is in my, the 12 pages of the Ohio Common Goodie. I remember he had installed everything on the, everything in their paper to say, oh, and yet in this diatribe, he has this sentimental letter to Sammy in heaven, all about how, you know, they, You know, your memory and, you know, your name is taken in vain, and you can't believe the terrible things they do, they just, and, uh, oh, tell me if only you were still here, but, and yet there he is telling me that, you know, I've already told all of his ideas, and it's, uh, it's very sad, because I think, in fact, there are some minutes of mathematics that point into this trade-in item, when you can take out the ravings against Venus. So, no, I'm not going to agree with that. I think there is an interesting point there about, sort of cookies with a view of the five categories that are the basis of everything, and that is, you know, categories aren't so good for anything, so it's crazy to look into that stuff.

25:00 There's a lot of crazy reasons, and there really are, really. I'm surprised that there's a lot of foundational discussion. And he also held up any applications of his, which might have been an important idea, that would have been. I don't know. I don't know what's wrong with him. Well, the critical thing, and don't find it out to me, Arthur, is that if you read the Springer-Vell Act of 1861, the big book with Johnson and the two other guys, and the fact that they were all the same, but in that, they give very generous acknowledgments. Oh, and it's a really terrible thing that we've got Fez in the introduction, the idea of topos was born from the fertile brain of Alexander Roach because you're not allowed to mention Roach's name unless you go into a dithyrambic hymn of ecstasy and prostrate yourself in, you know, making clear that you are this high priest and that nobody reveals him like you did to Penelope. So therefore it's insulting him by...

27:30 Yes, you see, but I alone, I alone, now that many gods, almighty gods, because all of your followers have betrayed you, I'm like, you know, when they've all denied you Christ, but I alone, you know, I'm the one who's called Christ. I don't know what you mean by that. You're crazy. You're crazy. You're crazy. You're crazy. You're crazy. You're crazy. Thank you for watching.

30:00 I think it says the whole point about the bibliography of the elements is that the supplement of the bibliography is almost there, not the paper. It's meant to cover the ground, it's really meant to cover the ground, all the tiny papers that have been produced since 1977, all of the mathematical and all the other stuff which is in the bibliography of the universe, is not in the evidence. I think it explains the reason. Thank you for your attention. Again, what's the perp here?

32:30 You can come to St. Paul's today if you want. I thought that was a good idea. I might go there. It's very interesting. No, I've never been to St. Paul's. I've never been to St. Paul's. I've never been to St. Paul's. I've never been to St. Paul's. I've never been to St. Paul's. I've never been to St. Paul's. I've never been to St. Paul's. I've never been to St. Paul's. I've never been to St. Paul's. I've never been to St. Paul's. I've never been to St. Paul's. I've never been to St. Paul's. I've never been to St. Paul's.

35:00 I've never been to St. Paul's. I've never been to St. Paul's. Thank you for watching. The lecture will be held at the same time as the lecture will be held at the same time as the lecture.

50:00 It's a strategy for bypassing logic. Black beer? Oh, you mean Guinness? No, no, I'm not a Guinness man. No, I'm not crazy about either, to be honest, but I'm even less crazy on Guinness. What about a... What's this winter lager? Try that. I'll do that. Three of those. That'd be great. Three of those.

52:30 They're coming. Well, you told me that John Myhill was fascinating to see, to find that. Was it? Specker, sorry, Specker, Specker, Specker, Specker, Specker, I'm sorry, Specker. No, no, he never noticed it. He's a Swiss mathematician. Yeah, that's even more interesting. Thanks. Thank you. Homer Simpson famously said, beer is God's way of letting him know, letting us know that he loves us and wants us to be happy.

55:00 That's very good. I think that's the best beer I've ever tasted, dare I say it, in the United States. And what is it? It's an American beer. I couldn't get the name of it. I'll get it when I get the hat. Very good. Well, no, because, quite honestly, when people say American beer, I always assume Bud or Michelin or something like that, which is my taste, not my taste, but this is very good. There are some very, very good microbrews, indeed, in the States. Yeah, but I don't have them. Excellent microbrews. No, no, no, those who do tell me that there are, but the big commercial breweries are pretty good. There's no doubt. It's a great history of debating whether we already know what we're speaking of. Thank you for your attention. Well, I had another test moment in this graduate seminar, and one of the graduate students was, no, in fact, with a new assistant professor, and he was saying that you can't understand that theory if you don't have that talk. I mentioned it before, he didn't understand it. He didn't understand it. Wait, but he's telling you he can't understand it. Well, not really. He can't really understand it.

57:30 Well, that was a real preachy thing about how the abstract math, you don't need to know how to do it. A completely distorted version which bears no relation to the real history, you know. But you would think after all this speech there's something about the importance of doing it. Yeah. So it works out as an important point for doing it. Yes, that's right. That's about it. And this is the book from which about 95% of the philosophers have ever heard of the word stop-loss theory and have learned what is the little splattering of stop-loss theory they think they know. Well, the last version of the genesis of the... I don't know if the last time, when the last time I looked at that genesis of the theory. Well, it may have been substantially revised very recently, but I did look at it about five or six days ago, and it does actually start out with a not very extended, not very helpful discussion, but nonetheless with a discussion of the whole issue of points and algebraic geometry and what this program was about. So I think that whoever's revised it the last time has at least started to try and look in the right places. It is a hodgepodge, but they don't say that it came from the causing groups. They do say that it then had a second birth in Hansen and Marl.

1:00:00 And that's what they taught somebody coming back out. I forget. So you've done that. And I quote him, and I quote him, I'm going, yeah. Yeah, yeah. You know, believe what he says he's doing. Yeah. Now someone's not good enough to have a specific history. Because people know you can publish this on cohomology, you can solve a great deal of a problem, but anything about a telepath for a better future... There are a lot of theories. But of course, what is the result if you want to use the theorem on it? You do need to. He's not making a hard decision point, but that theory is somehow objectively expensive. That certainly does need very substantial revision. Oh, can you tell me something quickly? I didn't want to burden Pierre with a lot of biographical questions at the moment. I'll introduce him briefly. I know his aggregation was in 1950. He was at the Echelon Mall for three years and he was already invited to be a kind of informal member for Barclay when he was still the member for, well he graduated, but he became a formal member in 1954. I talked to him a little bit about his relations with Sammy and obviously with his... But what was he doing? And in the 60s, he was working mainly on probability theory, wasn't he?

1:02:30 Okay, what I was going to ask you was what was he doing mainly in the 70s and 80s? He was already running the Philosophy of Maths seminar at the Ecole des Maths by the 80s, but it was started over there. But I'm not too sure what he was doing in between. Okay, well, I'll wait. Yes, the seminar, which is the Philosophy of Maths seminar at the Ecole des Maths. The one which meets every second month, I think, was actually begun by Holmes, and then he hired a strange guy called Noard to run it, and then Doudonnie took it over. And this is what Pierre told me today on the flight, so this is some fresh information. Doudonnie took it over, and Pierre took it over from Doudonnie. The Luard, who I'd never heard of, to be honest, his name ran low on the books at all, but apparently he was a mathematician, he was a mathematician, he was a personal psychic about mathematics, and he brought him in to pick the people for this seminar, because he didn't know any math, really, so why did he start, he was going to have to get people to do something he did, run a mouse seminar, he got this guy Luard. Luard wrote a book about mathematics. That's all I have. I didn't have much of a feel. Pierre seemed to have some respect for Balaam, but it was the name I came across. But then, of course, you don't even call him that. And then, who made it much more thematically. He said in the Diodone and Beeple and the others over the hard days, it was really a hodgepodge. But now they've got a structured theme each year. It's a very, very deep classical problem, a very deep classical problem.

1:05:00 I never realized that Pierre had worked on that. He said that he very much, as a young man, wanted to learn mathematical physics, and it was clear he was not going to learn it from the physicists in École Normale, I think, at that time. That's what he was doing in the 60s, he was working on the Riemann hypothesis, of course, and that's what he was doing in the 60s, working on the Riemann hypothesis, because he wrote a famous open letter to Henry Meyer, Why the Riemann hypothesis hasn't been true, which was about 69, which kind of summarized all of his work on the Riemann hypothesis in the 60s. I just want to be able to say something very briefly about what I've done, as far as they need to decay, keep it, well, no, no, I mean I'll just cite one label, okay, I'll do my, I was good with you Bill, I kept it nice and short, come on, I didn't, I kept it very short, possibly the risk of distorting and missing out an awful lot of your treatment, but I did keep it short. It would be good. Jean-Pierre has also been in touch with him on the phone and correspondingly was hoping he might be persuaded to come, or if he can't be persuaded to actually come and sit in a meeting, he really is a virgin to even a small meeting, but at least he could be persuaded to meet Bill. I think Pierre is very interested to meet him as well.

1:07:30 Well, it's such an opportunity. I mean, here he is in Boston, right on this very campus where we're having a meeting. Maybe what he meant, I say across from the scores, was that he doesn't like great, big, structured meetings like, you know, International Congress and things like that. A lot of people don't like that. They're much more into it. It's not a failing there, but he obviously has to, he really does like to have things on the page. That's how he relates to ideas. One of the things he said that I like about the ideal, and that's the imagination, everybody has a chance to think about it. And then he says that it won't be like that. Well, if you guys are in this space, in this Hilbert space, category theory, I'm sure that you can place it out there.

1:10:00 But then the reason for his choice of terminology does become the main question. Ah, okay, now I understand. Well, no one will ever see the Pacific Ocean for the first time again. Well, in fact, you notice in our paper, Rylander and Keller, they start with closed categories. They do not have closed categories. Later, you have to find them. It doesn't have to be closed.

1:12:30 It's called from a geometrical point of view, but I didn't know that he, no actually he told me he got the, he submitted the manuscript, but I don't think he got the proofs back, so I... I didn't know that, so that can't be right, so... Well, you can ask him. Well, I was very struck by the fact that, you know, when we were having our conversations in Boudoir about two years ago, it was actually Cardinal who insisted that we should devote a day to discussing the contributions, days of discussions. Well, I haven't seen Jean-Pierre's manuscript neither, so I don't know. He showed me parts of it. I've got maybe three of his chapters. It's hard to get to the bottom of it. Properties. State. As a circle. I've got a list of categories. At the same time, they were arguing that, as I would say, the pushing was better than cubical.

1:15:00 A lot of people would say cubical was better than elliptical. There are various modifications, symmetric cubical, I'm not sure of category, but there are various. They all have this subjective argument that one of these is better than the other. And if you press them on it, well, it's better than the other. No, you just have to test it. It's really incredible. Is this a mathematical argument? If we're looking at the theory, it makes sense to me because we all can't know it. It's because of the properties of the things we're viewing. And they even say it themselves. It's all very complicated. They say it themselves. Of course, it's a homotropic category. It's not really what we're interested in. I'll have to say it again. Vibrations are important too. That's about the category you're taking. Oh, yeah. That was the whole thing. You were doing something with cohomology. What did you know about any of that? Well, first of all, no. Second of all, I didn't know why that happened. Because numbers aren't important. I'm telling you, with cohomology, you've been here for a long time. In fact, we've been here for a long time. Oh, really? Because you've merely produced these incredibly influential members. Great theory builder and great programmer. And he's actually been coming together.