Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below
Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
Currently, the page Tools for the advancement of objective logic says that the described paper discusses the “concrete particular”, but this paper does not discuss “concrete particular”.
[For context, Lawvere regards “concrete particular” as a category error, as he has stated elsewhere—basically to Lawvere, the abstract and the concrete are two aspects of a universal/general concept, and not to be discussed at the level of particulars. The passage from the particular to the universal/general is marked by choosing a subclass of observables about the particular as definitive—this generates the abstract general, and thence the concrete generals. The connection between the particulars and the concrete general comes from the fact that each particular can be observed in the ways specified by the abstract general, and that the abstract generals embed as representables into the concrete generals.]
To be precise, the 1994 paper talks about the particular, and then the abstract and concrete general.
However, I haven’t edited the page yet because I believe that in order to keep the nlab internally consistent, one may need to also update the page abstract general, concrete general and concrete particular; however, I am aware of a significant discussion elsewhere in the nforum, and I see that maybe some consensus was already reached there in favor of the notion of the “concrete particular”.
The latter page contains the nlab’s synthesis of these ideas which does not quite match Lawvere’s—which is generally fine, but I think we should be careful about attributing this interpretation to Lawvere himself (which we are in danger of doing in the page on the 1994 paper).
Do you all have any thoughts on how to proceed?
FWIW, there is a pdf copy here of Lawvere’s paper.
I have modified these keywords, also added a pointer to the pdf.
Please feel invited to edit this and other pages.
I wasn’t sure about linking to the pdf given its grey status as far as legality goes, else I would have jumped at the opportunity :-)
I wasn’t sure about linking to the pdf
You did link to the pdf in #2.
Do people here who have read the article mostly understand the article? Section 4 in particular I find obscure.
I meant as an “official nLab link”. Toby, in the past, expressed hesitation about linking to such grey sources from nLab pages. I certainly don’t feel comfortable linking to Sci-Hub for papers, for instance, even though it gives wider access than the publisher would.
What is it that makes this version of the paper “grey” (as opposed to “black”, i.e. a copyright violation)?
Ah, I suppose it’s ’black’, but no worse than eg the late Andrew Rainicki’s personal stash of papers that happen to be visible to the open web, as opposed to living on some website declared illegal and taken to court of millions of copyright violations.
A quick search suggests to me that it’s probably not legally dangerous to link to a copyright violation, but is also probably worth avoiding. So I would lean towards not doing it as well.
1 to 10 of 10