Not signed in (Sign In)

Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

  • Sign in using OpenID

Site Tag Cloud

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry book bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics comma complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration finite foundation foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pages pasting philosophy physics pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory stack string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft type type-theory universal variational-calculus

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to nForum
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeSep 4th 2021

    added doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-4721-8

    and properly expanded out the page title

    diff, v13, current

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 6th 2023
    • (edited May 6th 2023)

    added this quote, from p. 103:

    The multiple examples, here and elsewhere, of adjoint functors tend to show that adjoints occur almost everywhere in many branches of Mathematics. It is the thesis of this book that a systematic use of all these adjunctions illuminates and clarifies these subjects.

    diff, v14, current

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 6th 2023
    • (edited May 6th 2023)

    I am taking the liberty of deleting this old paragraph:

    Categories Work is the standard reference for category theory, and we may often cite it here. Almost all of its terminology is widely adopted, although its approach to foundations (one Grothendieck universe) is not as widely used (see discussion at nForum).

    If anyone feels strongly that there is something in the paragraph which is worth retaining, then let’s maybe try to rephrase it and put it back in.

    diff, v14, current

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeMay 19th 2023

    Would anybody know if it’s possible to retrieve that old discussion (linked to in the paragraph) of #3)? The URL is for an ntnu.no page from when Andrew Stacey was around.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
    • CommentTimeMay 19th 2023

    Re #4: Simply append the number found in the URL to https://nforum.ncatlab.org/discussion/:

    https://nforum.ncatlab.org/discussion/1897

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeMay 19th 2023

    I’d be in favour of keeping a slimmed down and modified version of the opening sentence, something like

    Categories for the Working Mathematician has been a standard reference for category theory for decades; not the only one, but perhaps the most iconic.

    We have more options pitched at different levels today, and saying CWM is the standard reference is (as I’m sure Urs was thinking, in part) too strong a statement.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeMay 19th 2023
    • (edited May 19th 2023)

    I also don’t see why the book needs to referred to as ’Categories Work’ (this has never gelled with me) in a reference page. In discussions on the net, sure. But electrons are cheap, and it’s a type-roughly once situation here.

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeMay 19th 2023

    (Thank you, David.)

    I’m in favor of David’s suggestion in #6, with an option of replacing “perhaps” by “one of”.

    If “Categories Work” doesn’t work for David, I think we should get rid of it. (I’ve never used it in speech, I’m pretty sure, and never heard anyone who did.)

    A moot point, maybe, but I’ve found the foundational axiom of one universe useful on various occasions.

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeMay 20th 2023

    I agree with Todd’s suggestion editing my sentence. If no one has added it to the page I’ll do it soon. I’ve never heard or read “Categories Work” outside the nLab, but I grant that someone must have been familiar with it, to include it here.

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorGuest
    • CommentTimeMay 20th 2023

    Wikipedia abbreviates it as CWM.

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 20th 2023
    • (edited May 20th 2023)

    The entry does open with saying it’s a “classical reference”.

    Not clear what is gained by claiming that it’s “iconic” – which sounds appropriate for a book review signed by a single author who can claim to have this subjective feeling.

    Also to reflect on how much the clever title influences this feeling. Imagine Borceux had chosen a more iconic title for his “Handbook” (which, incidentally, the nLab cites much more.)

    • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 20th 2023
    • (edited May 20th 2023)

    How about this:

    After “…is a classical textbook on category theory”, we continue with:

    The iconic title probably refers to the declared ambition of demonstrating the prevalence of examples of adjoint functors occurring throughout mathematics

    [p. 2:] “Adjoints, as we shall see, occur throughout mathematics.”

    followed by the other quote which was there already (#2):

    [p. 103:] “The multiple examples, here and elsewhere, of adjoint functors tend to show that adjoints occur almost everywhere in many branches of Mathematics. It is the thesis of this book that a systematic use of all these adjunctions illuminates and clarifies these subjects.”

    diff, v15, current

    • CommentRowNumber13.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 20th 2023

    added hyperlinked keywords to the list of contents (here)

    diff, v15, current