Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1998 08:23:20 -0400 (EDT) Subject: categories: xxx preprint archive From: James Stasheff The figures are in for this years submissions to the math archive at xxx.lanl.gov '98 Total: 1022 AG 221; QA 191; DG 110; MP 95; GT 70; CO 54; OA 32; CV 30; PR 30; FA 24; SP 24; RT 19; DS 15; AT 14; AP 11; NT 11; CA 10; GR 10; LA 9; RA 7; KT 6; LO 5; MG 5; IG 4; SG 4; GN 3; NA 3; HO 2; SC 2; CT 1; Is it really true that algebraic geoemtry is flourishing that much better than algebraic topology not to mention CT = category theory!! If you are unfamiliar with the archive, try to xxx.lanl.gov home page or contact me. ************************************************************ Until August 10, 1998, I am on leave from UNC and am at the University of Pennsylvania Jim Stasheff jds@math.upenn.edu 146 Woodland Dr Lansdale PA 19446 (215)822-6707 Jim Stasheff jds@math.unc.edu Math-UNC (919)-962-9607 Chapel Hill NC FAX:(919)-962-2568 27599-3250 From: Greg Kuperberg Subject: Re: categories: xxx preprint archive Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1998 12:13:26 -0700 (PDT) > Jim, > There is something wrong (probably internal at > xxx.lanl.gov) with your table of '98 abstracts in > various branches of math. I went there (for the > first time, thanks for the address) and clicked > on Category Theory and found 5 abstracts. Those > were all from the 3 months preceding this month, > so I thought there should be more in '98. I did > a search for the words 'category theory', > limited to '98, and got 8 abstracts. However, > more than half of those were classified, > primarily, as Quantum Groups or something. So > God only knows how many CT's there are in lanl > in '98, but not less than 5. There is 1 with primary category CT and 7 cross-listed into CT in 1998. A second CT paper dated 1995 is from the migration of the MSRI preprint series. Jim's table, which was forwarded from xxx staff, counts only primary submissions, to avoid double-counting. You can get a clear picture at http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/math.CT I should say that the main consequences so far of creating CT has been a lot of theorizing about the categories in the xxx mathematics archive. Perhaps that's a natural response from category theorists, but it's not what the people who created CT had in mind. Greg Subject: categories: Re: xxx preprint archive Date: Wed, 08 Jul 1998 11:05:31 -0700 From: Vaughan Pratt >Is it really true that algebraic geoemtry is flourishing that much better >than algebraic topology not to mention CT = category theory!! The number of submissions to xxx.lanl.gov seems more driven by culture than anything else. The following are the number of submissions for 1998 to date: Astrophysics: 2225 Condensed Matter 2272 + 10 more physics areas Mathematics (total) 932 Computation & Language 48 Evidently very few computer scientists think to submit to xxx.lanl.gov. I wouldn't infer from those numbers that computer science is not flourishing or publishing. As far as algebraic geometry vs category theory goes, the most recent 5 submissions in those respective areas span 1 week vs. 11 weeks, suggesting that the recent rate of submissions is closer to 11:1 than 221:1. (I'd have taken a larger sample if one had been as handy as the most-recent-5 statistic.) Vaughan Pratt Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 10:19:08 +1000 (EST) From: Sjoerd Erik CRANS Subject: categories: Re: xxx preprint archive James Stasheff wrote: > The figures are in for this years submissions to the math archive at > xxx.lanl.gov > > > '98 Total: 1022 > AG 221; QA 191; DG 110; MP 95; GT 70; CO 54; OA 32; CV 30; PR 30; FA 24; > SP 24; > RT 19; DS 15; AT 14; AP 11; NT 11; CA 10; GR 10; LA 9; RA 7; KT 6; LO 5; > MG 5; > IG 4; SG 4; GN 3; NA 3; HO 2; SC 2; CT 1; > > Is it really true that algebraic geoemtry is flourishing that much better > than algebraic topology not to mention CT = category theory!! Although this might indeed well be true, isn't is a bit too simplistic to measure the succes of a subject this way? I think that for a more balanced view it is useful to consider the following points: 1. CT is a new subject class, and naturally has lower traffic than the well established ones, 2. There are cross references to CT from other classes, 3. There are papers containing some category theory classified under other classes; some of these could well have been classified CT (remember that the author determines the subject class!), 4. The position of Category Theory in Mathematics is quite different from Algebraic Geometry's (more marginal??), 5. The categorical community is relatively small, so categorists might be thinking they don't need a preprint archive, 6. Category Theory is less "time-sensitive" than other subjects, so categorists don't rush off to get their preprints time-stamped (as I have heard rumoured is the practice among (mathematical) physicists), 7. And there's the compulsory-tex-source-submission issue ... Sjoerd Crans School of MPCE Macquarie University NSW 2109 Australia email: scrans@mpce.mq.edu.au Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1998 15:01:20 -0400 (EDT) From: John R Isbell Subject: categories: Re: xxx preprint archive [note from moderator: a response to this has been posted, but the original was inadvertently delayed] Jim, There is something wrong (probably internal at xxx.lanl.gov) with your table of '98 abstracts in various branches of math. I went there (for the first time, thanks for the address) and clicked on Category Theory and found 5 abstracts. Those were all from the 3 months preceding this month, so I thought there should be more in '98. I did a search for the words 'category theory', limited to '98, and got 8 abstracts. However, more than half of those were classified, primarily, as Quantum Groups or something. So God only knows how many CT's there are in lanl in '98, but not less than 5. John Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 12:11:57 -0400 (EDT) From: James Stasheff Subject: categories: p.s. Re: xxx preprint archive I may have given the wrong impression: Ginsparg writes: note that "Computation & Language" is not a comprehensive archive for all of Computer Science and all of Linguistics. it is a small archive started in '94, corresponding to just a small subject class of computer science, devoted to a very specific sub-area involving language. as such note that later this month we *will* be starting a comprehensive cs archive along the lines of what was done in math, and its advisory board, formed from an ACM committee early this year, has repeated many of the deliberations regarding the most effective partitioning, and its relation to the existing ACM classification scheme. (in the end the primary level is likely to reflect instead their conference structure.) the aim is to evolve that much more quickly to a set of mirrored comprehensive resources for physics, math and computer science -- presuming the latter two eventually choose to participate at the same level as the former... it is partly true that these are culture driven, but these cultures evolve: the examples of Astrophysics and Condensed Matter both started quite slowly six years ago (in comparison to High Energy Physics which took off instantly in '91 and saturated by late '93, essentially 100% participation) but those two each more than doubled their submission rates from '94-'96 and have continued (though Astrophysics is now nearing saturation as well), so these cultures are capable of adapting if it suits their research purposes. pg Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 11:41:23 -0400 (EDT) From: James Stasheff Subject: categories: re: the lanl e-print server One correspondent writes: for example, there's only one paper per year classified as "Category Theory" (currently there's only math.CT/9805102), then we conclude that either a) no papers suitable for that classification are being written, b) the people writing those papers are unaware of the archive, c) they're aware of it but prefer not or are too busy to use it, or d) they're actively boycotting it. I'm hoping that c) is the reason and not d). Listing with xxx.lanl.gov in noway precludes or detracts from the use of e.g. hypatia comments? jim ************************************************************ Until August 10, 1998, I am on leave from UNC and am at the University of Pennsylvania Jim Stasheff jds@math.upenn.edu 146 Woodland Dr Lansdale PA 19446 (215)822-6707 Jim Stasheff jds@math.unc.edu Math-UNC (919)-962-9607 Chapel Hill NC FAX:(919)-962-2568 27599-3250