stuart@rochester.UUCP (Stuart Friedberg) (02/16/84)
From: Stuart Friedberg <stuart>
x <- die, bug!
Can anyone tell me why the following 4 authors are frequently
cited in the professional (computer science and mathematics)
literature as "ADJ" ?
J.A. Goguen
J.W. Thatcher
E.G. Wagner
J.B. Wright
Occasionally these two additional authors are included in "ADJ".
H. Ehrig
H.-J. Kreowski
They apparently need not *all* appear in a single paper for the paper
to be cited as [ADJ 8x]. If "ADJ" is an acronym it is apparently in
some language other than English. "ADJ" does not appear to be the
employer or educational institution these people have worked for or
currently work for (some of them have moved around). "ADJ" is
definitely *NOT* the name of the journal in which their articles
appear.
The "ADJ" group does work in universal algebra as applied to
specification of abstract (*very* abstract) data types and related
topics in category theory.
This is not a quiz. I would like to know the answer. Please
*MAIL* me any pertinent information you have.
Stu Friedberg
{seismo, allegra}!rochester!stuart UUCP
stuart@rochester ARPAbts@unc.UUCP (Bruce Smith) (02/20/84)
Strange are the ways the networks function-- when they do at all, that is. I passed the question along to Don Stanat, a theoretician on our faculty, and he passed it along a bit further... Well, here is an answer, come back along the same path: D From: Don Stanat <stanat@unc> S Subject: a question t To: bts@unc a n I've long since lost the address of the person who asked the question, a but here is the answer. Would you be so kind as to pass it along to t him? J From: Jim Thatcher i Subject: Why should the world wonder m To: stanat.unc@csnet-relay T h I don't think I can get into the rochester ARPA node - more precisely, a I have no idea how to do it. Beyond that a previous note to you was t returned to me. If this gets through, please acknowledge and pass on c the useless information. h e Goguen, Thatcher, Wagner and Wright began working together at IBM in 1973 r on algebraic methods in computer science. Thrilled with what they found - there they were writing a paper on factorizations which was neat. But J they decided they needed an introduction to Category Theory for Computer i Scientists for that paper. That introduction expanded to a report and m ultimately to a series of seven reports. Then the first of the planned T seven reports itself expanded into three parts of which exactly two h were written. The never finished seried was called "A Junction Between a Category Theory and Computer Science: N, Part J" where 1<=N<=7 and t 1<=J<=3. "A Junction ... " was a weak play on the key word c "adjunction" of categorical algebra and around IBM at the time they h referred to the series of papers as the ADJ series. One of the reasons e that less than 1/7 of the series was ever completed was that the r authors started writing papers based on what they found working - on the magnum opus (Initial Algebra Semantics ..., Rational Algebraic J Theories ..., ...). These received quite a good response and some i of the authors (lower in the alphabet) started getting tired of being m referred to as "et. al." in the context of Goguen, et. al. So they T started mixing up authors names in publications and so as to a have the relevant publications in a bunch, referring to them as t ADJ. And that's where it started. c h The source is now forgotten (thank goodness), but a simpler explanation e was offered -- A Dumb Joke! r - Jim