Discussions FW Lawvere

0:00 This is your 1990, this is your KOMO. There's a huge amount of stuff in that I wanted to ask you about. The business of the rigs, the representation of the numbers via this rig construction that you have in 1.1, which you've talked about a lot since, obviously. I think you probably have, actually, yes. This is an office in the University of Bristol. That's quite all right, hi. Just running out of ink. And you've got the KOMO one. I'd like to ask you about this afternoon, and also two books that you make in the course of the Eilenberg-Freschrich paper, one about Etan Du and one rather more general about Etan Du, perhaps not on the latest, but we'll talk about it this morning.

2:30 Richard is going to come to let us back in tomorrow, use this office tomorrow, there's no problem with that, and on Monday as well. So you don't want me to... No problem. Okay. Fine, I won't need to worry about trying to get back in.

5:00 Yes, I've read that. It's mainly a historical book. It gets better in the 19th century. Even the early stuff is quite interesting, the stuff about the Greeks is certainly interesting. It's essentially his novel, it's not like his introductory book on the epistemological analysis, because that's not the epistemology, it's much more in a kind of book for philosophers and historians of mathematics. I'm just going to specifically say that this isn't yours, is it, Bill? ...meeting in honor of Christian Husserl, just over a year ago.

7:30 You did as well, didn't you? Yes, I did. He actually wanted to have it when he was beginning his study of August Theron. Okay. We could have asked that young lady if she was going to stay at a very beautiful place.

10:00 You did, in fact. That was going to be my next question. The category of geometric work isn't to me. It's not a concept. You also made the point sometime afterwards in Como that, of course, this is a monoidal action. That's their dedication. Yeah. I would do a ton of work in a small category. Then work out. I'm sure of the value. The second stage. That you've now revised or substantially, you know, refined and revised some of the ideas that were in there, but still it was a nice answer. Thanks. Well, is it three stages?

12:30 Oh, well, it'll set out in these remarks in the 19, when was it, about 1976, wasn't it, the Ironberg? Okay. No, you probably wrote it down, didn't you? Um, one was, tea might simply mean fatigue, so Armstrong pointed out that it's all category points. The main quotient of interest is what I call ample cohesion, a sense of somewhere quality, but Peter pointed out what is the simplest example that I've mentioned, but there's a characterization of this. And then the idea that QD might be PC, that then one would have to do subtopics.

15:00 ...was the one which worked the last week. In the case of the identified as playing a decisive part in the characterization, is that correct or have I misunderstood? That is right. Are you referring to the Eiland-Burgl? Yeah. Yeah. We go to some of the subcategories. We come to C, C slash X, and then apply this hedron, till we end up with the problem that we have a subtotal system, even though in the species case, it's an essential morphism, it's not, we don't expect to have that left hedron, and we should have instead another right hedron, but it doesn't seem to be one that automatically, unless, or maybe then...

17:30 Morphisms induced by small conchers that have a terminal object, in other words, right adjoined at the level of these small categories of algebraic keys. And then you actually have the two conchers at the level of the scythes. And C-slash-X is just essentially an arbitrary category of terminal objects. Terminal objects still have a hidden purpose and they still have a terminal object.