I
report below Michael Barr’s response to my request for a clarification
(in italic),
followed by my reply to it.
First let me state that I have not in any way been aware of this
controversy.
I have reached an age (78 in three weeks) at which it is extremely
hard to read new material.
I stick pretty much to what I am working on currently
and am involved with my fight with a referee who wants a proof or
reference for every statement, no matter how trivial or well known.
I was favorably impressed by the talk you gave in our
seminar a few years ago, but I did not follow it in any deep way.
In general I would say that any result that is
"well-known folklore" should be published if for no other reason than
that then it can be cited.
As an example, my referee wants a proof of the
following: every space in the limit closure of the unit interval is
compact Hausdorff.
I wish I could help you, but I just cannot for the reason above.
I hope it is not an example of male chauvinism, but I
cannot make that accusation without knowing more.
Best wishes,
Michael
Dear Professor Barr,
Many thanks for your
response and your positive remark about my talk at McGill. I completely
agree with your position on the matter of the publication of results
that some experts might have known but not published. I should add that
I consider the notion of “folk theorem” very ill-defined, and
potentially dangerous, since it can be used by established people to
prevent young researchers in a disadvantaged position from getting due
credit for their discoveries. No serious scientist should claim credit
for a result that he has not publicly written down (or publicly
presented) anywhere, on the grounds that he “knew it”.
Best regards,
Olivia Caramello