In this thread with @johncarlosbaez I was mentioning how when I first encountered Category Theory it seemed like little more than a curiosity (for my purposes, as a physicist), even though mathematicians seemed excited about it.

I had almost the opposite experience with Nonstandard Analysis (i.e. the hyperreal numbers), in the sense that I bumped into this notion, read a bit about it, and it sounded potentially quite useful. Physicists tend to talk in terms of infinitesimals anyway, so a framework where that could be done rigorously seemed useful, and I was curious if it might provide nice ways to think about other things such a path integrals or even renormalization. But the only mathematician I talked to about it dismissed it as basically a curiosity. I believe the way he put it was that it was "just a trick to avoid an extra quantifier in in proofs."

Now I'm curious if that is the consensus among the and folks around here or if people see it as a practically useful tool.

Nick  
@johncarlosbaez It's funny because, of course, as a theoretical physicist I took a fair amount of math, including graduate courses in the math depa...
Follow

@andrejbauer Interesting. I'm unfamiliar with that, so I'll have to check it out.

@internic Executive summary: physicists use nilpotent infinitesimals, i.e., dx² = 0 (or more generally dxⁿ = 0 if calculating to higher-order terms). Smooth infinitesimal analysis accommodates those, but non-standard analysis does not.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
CleverLibre Social

CleverLibre Social is an inclusive social instance for open discussion, learning, and community.
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.