Not signed in (Sign In)

A discussion forum about contributions to the nLab wiki and related areas of mathematics, physics, and philosophy.

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

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology definitions deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration 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 kan lie-theory limit 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 newpage nlab nonassociative noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory object 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 string string-theory subobject superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory type type-theory universal variational-calculus

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

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).

- Discussion Type
- discussion topiccohomology with constant coefficients
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 1
- Last comment by Urs
- Last Active Nov 8th 2010

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicalgebras over monads, algebraic theories, operads
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 1
- Last comment by Urs
- Last Active Nov 8th 2010

I made sure the following list of entries exists and interlinked everything. Some entries are still stubs that need to be filled with content. Am working on it.

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicfibration in a 2-category
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by FinnLawler
- Comments 7
- Last comment by Mike Shulman
- Last Active Nov 7th 2010

I’ve started cleaning up and adding stuff at fibration in a 2-category, but it’s bedtime now, so I’ll finish it tomorrow.

- Discussion Type
- discussion topiccoshape of an (infinity,1)-topos
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 10
- Last comment by Mike Shulman
- Last Active Nov 7th 2010

I had created coshape of an (infinity,1)-topos

Mike, what should we do? If we rename that entry to something else we would also need to rename shape of an (infinity,1)-topos.

I’d rather suggest that we proceed entirely in parallel to the dual shape theory and instead create now entries global sections of an (infinity,1)-topos, global sections in an (infinity,1)-topos etc, dual to fundamental infinity-groupoid of a locally infinity-connected (infinity,1)-topos, etc.

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicuniversal cover of a topos
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Mike Shulman
- Comments 8
- Last comment by zskoda
- Last Active Nov 7th 2010

I have added to universal covering space a discussion of the “fiber of $X\to \Pi_1(X)$” definition in terms of little toposes rather than big ones.

I find this definition of the universal cover extremely appealing. It seems that this sort of thing must have been on the tip of Grothendieck’s tongue, and likewise of all the other people who have studied fundamental groups and groupoids of a topos, but it all becomes so much clearer (I think) when you state it in the language of higher toposes. In this case, merely (2,1)-toposes are enough, so no one can argue that the categorical technology wasn’t there – so why didn’t people see this way of stating it until recently? Or did they?

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicstructure oo-sheaves and oo-algebraic theories
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 2
- Last comment by zskoda
- Last Active Nov 7th 2010

I made the following obvious fact more manifest in the respective $n$Lab entries:

a pregeometry (for structured (infinity,1)-toposes) $\mathcal{T}$ is a special case of a (multi-sorted) (infinity,1)-algbraic theory.

A structure $\infty$-sheaf

$\mathcal{O} : \mathcal{T} \to \mathcal{X}$on $\mathcal{X}$ is an $\infty$-algebra over this $\infty$-algebraic theory in $\mathcal{X}$. The extra conditions on it ensure that it indeed looks like a sheaf of

*function algebras*.(I added a respective remark to the discussion of pre-geometries and added an Example-sectoin with this to the entry of oo-alghebraic theories.)

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicPrimary Homotopy Operations
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Tim_Porter
- Comments 7
- Last comment by Tim_Porter
- Last Active Nov 6th 2010

I have created a stub for primary homotopy operation. At present it just refers to Whitehead products and composition operations and redirects attention to those entries and to Pi-algebras, which will be next on my list to be created. I do not have access to G. W. Whitehead’s book on homotopy theory so have not given a precise definition nor a discussion of what these are, although the entry on $\Pi$-algebras will to some extent cure that. If anyone knows the definition well or has Whitehead’s book, can they provide the details…. otherwise it will remain a stub. :-(

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicCanonical transformations
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by TobyBartels
- Comments 64
- Last comment by Urs
- Last Active Nov 5th 2010

New page: canonical transformation

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicJohn and Jack Duskin
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 5
- Last comment by Harry Gindi
- Last Active Nov 4th 2010

The page join of simplicial sets is requesting a page titled “Jack Duskin”. We do have a page titled John Duskin. It that supposed to coincide?

In any case, if anyone who created that unsatisfied link to “Jack Duskin” at join of simplicial sets (also one to van Osdol) could do something such as to satisfy the links, that would be nice.

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicoperadic Dold-Kan correspondence
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 1
- Last comment by Urs
- Last Active Nov 4th 2010

started stub for operadic Dold-Kan correspondence (for simplicial- vs dg-algebras over operads)

with Birgit Richer’s article we’d also have a notion of “monadic DK correspondence” (for simplicial vs dg-algebras over monads)

does anyone know any direct considerations of “T-algebraic DK-correspondence” (for simplicial vs dg-algebras over a Lawvere theory)?

of course this is to some extent implied by the previous versions. But it would be good to have a direct description.

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicAlexander-Whitney and Eilenberg-Zilber
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 10
- Last comment by Urs
- Last Active Nov 4th 2010

- Discussion Type
- discussion topiclift of adjunctions to cats of monoids
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 1
- Last comment by Urs
- Last Active Nov 4th 2010

I am in the process of reproducing the proof of the main theorem in Schwede-Shipley’s “Equivalence of monoidal model categories” at monoidal Quillen adjunction (see the references and pointers given there).

I find that there are some intermediate steps that need to be filled in and which require a tad more thinking than just copying what they write.

This mainly concerns some pure category-theoretic arguments about adjunctions, which is entirely independent of the model category theoretic argument that is later built on it. I am saying this in case you are an expert eager to help on some pure category theory issues but maybe not so much into model category theory.

I think I can figure things out myself eventually, but since I am a bit time pressured and since working toghether is fun anyway, I thought I’d just highlight here what I am doing and where there is still things remaining to be done.

So I am working on the section Lift to Quillen adjunction on monoids. This breaks up the Schwede-Shipley argument into a bunch of small lemmas and propositions and aims to write out the proofs. Partly this is spelled out. Whenever there is a gap in the argument that still needs to be written up or even figured out, I put ellipses

`(...)`

for the moment. I’ll be working now on filling these ellipses with content, so where exactly you see them may change over time. But if you feel you can easily help fill some of them, you are kindly invited to do so!

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicoplax monoidal functor
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 5
- Last comment by FinnLawler
- Last Active Nov 3rd 2010

added to oplax monoidal functor the statement how an oplax monoidal structure is induced on a functor from a lax monoidal structure on a right adjoint.

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicBasis in functional analysis
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Andrew Stacey
- Comments 10
- Last comment by Tim_Porter
- Last Active Nov 3rd 2010

After getting myself confused about the distinction between the various notions of basis in infinite dimensions, I wrote up my attempt to disentangle myself at basis in functional analysis (also redirects from Hamel basis, topological basis, and Schauder basis. Hmm, now I think about it, maybe “topological basis” is too close to “basis of a topology”). I may still be confused about stuff, of course.

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicbraided monoidal functor
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 1
- Last comment by Urs
- Last Active Nov 3rd 2010

created stub for braided monoidal functor – but still too lazy to type the diagrams in the axioms

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicbilax monoidal functor
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 1
- Last comment by Urs
- Last Active Nov 3rd 2010

created bilax monoidal functor

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicFrobenius monoidal functor
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 1
- Last comment by Urs
- Last Active Nov 3rd 2010

created Frobenius monoidal functor

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicabelian category, Eilenberg-Watts theorem
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by zskoda
- Comments 1
- Last comment by zskoda
- Last Active Nov 2nd 2010

I have separated Eilenberg-Watts theorem from abelian category and added the references and MR links. One of the queries from the abelian category is moved here with backpointer there. I cleaned up some typoi.

The following discussion is about to which extent abelian categories are a general context for homological algebra.

*Zoran*: I strongly disagree with the first sentence, particularly with THE (it is THE general context for linear algebra and homological algebra). MacLane was (according to Janelidze) looking whole life for what is the general context for homological algebra, and the current answer of expert are semi-abelian categories of Borceux and Janelidze, and homological categories…Linear algebra as well makes sense in many other contexts. This “idea’ is to me very misleading. MacLane in 1950 was lead by the idea to axiomatize the categories which behave like abelian groups. Grothendieck wanted to unify on the obsrervation that the categories of abelian sheaves and categories of R-modules have the same setup for homological algebra as in Tohoku.There is much linear algebra you can do with cokernels, for example, as well as much linear algebra which you can not do if you are not over a field for example. So, saying that abelian categories are distinguished is only among categories which have closest properties to abelian sheaves and R-modules, not among principles for homlogical algebra and linear algebra that uniquely (although the strong motivation was ever there).

Mike: I changed it to “a” general context; is that satisfactory? Once we have pages about those other notions, there can be links from here to there.

*Toby*: I've made the phrasing even weaker. Abelian categories are pretty cool, but (if you don't already have the examples that make it so useful) the definition is a fairly arbitrary place to draw the line.*Tim*: I note that sometimes we (collectively) take parts of a discussion and turn it into part of an entry, because of that I would like to note two points here. The first is that the accepted first definition of semi-abelian category is in the Janelidze, Marki, and Tholen (JPAA, but we have a link on the semi-abelian entry.)The other point is that Tim Van der Linden’s thesis does a lot of stuff that could be useful. It is available online http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0607100

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicequivalences and Street fibrations
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Mike Shulman
- Comments 2
- Last comment by DavidRoberts
- Last Active Nov 1st 2010

I expanded Street fibration a bit, and created equivalence of 2-categories to discuss the notion classically called “biequivalence.” I also noticed that for a long time the page equivalence of categories has claimed at the end that Bicat is (weakly) equivalent to Str2Cat, which I’m pretty sure is not true, so I fixed it.

- Discussion Type
- discussion topictopology stubs
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 11
- Last comment by Tim_Porter
- Last Active Nov 1st 2010

I tried to brush-up Warsaw circle and in the process created a bunch of simple stubs:

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicfoundations - contents
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 3
- Last comment by TobyBartels
- Last Active Nov 1st 2010

created floating TOC foundations - contents and added it to relevant pages

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicproperties of flat functors
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 3
- Last comment by DavidCarchedi
- Last Active Oct 31st 2010

At flat functor there is a statement that a functor $F : C \to \mathcal{E}$ on a complete category to a cocomplete category is left exact precisely if its Yoneda extension is.

I know this for $\mathcal{E} = Set$. There must be some extra conditions on $\mathcal{E}$ that have to be mentioned here.

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicKnot group
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Tim_Porter
- Comments 6
- Last comment by DavidRoberts
- Last Active Oct 31st 2010

I have started a page on knot groups. So far I have outlined how to get the Dehn presentation.

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicepistemic logic
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Tim_Porter
- Comments 1
- Last comment by Tim_Porter
- Last Active Oct 30th 2010

I have started a page for epistemic logic and one on $K_{(m)}$, the most basic form of epistemic logic.

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicsupercompact cardinal
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 1
- Last comment by Urs
- Last Active Oct 29th 2010

created supercompact cardinal

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicfundamental infinity-groupoid of a topos
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Mike Shulman
- Comments 3
- Last comment by Mike Shulman
- Last Active Oct 28th 2010

I created fundamental ∞-groupoid of a locally ∞-connected (∞,1)-topos in an attempt to draw together a thread that so far existed only (as far as I could tell) in subsections of shape of an (∞,1)-topos and geometric homotopy groups in an (∞,1)-topos.

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicfundamental infinity-groupoid
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 2
- Last comment by Mike Shulman
- Last Active Oct 28th 2010

I tried to brush-up the entry fundamental infinity-groupoid which had been in a rather sorry state. Some things I did:

stated the definition (!) $Sing X$

removed Ronnie’s remark that there is a problem with this definition due to lack of chosen fillers and instead added Thomas Nikolaus’s theorem that when you choose fillers to get an algebraic Kan complex $\Pi X$ there is (still) a direct proof of the homotopy hypothesis

made the statement that $Sing X$ is equivalently computed by the abstract $\infty$-topos-theoretic definition of fundamental $\infty$-groupoid a formal proposition.

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicprogroup
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Mike Shulman
- Comments 8
- Last comment by Mike Shulman
- Last Active Oct 28th 2010

Created progroup, with remarks about the equivalence between surjective progroups and prodiscrete localic groups.

Why do we have separate pages profinite space and Stone space which do nothing but point to each other? Is there any reason not to merge them?

- Discussion Type
- discussion topichigher van Kampen theorem in a concrete cohesive oo-quasitopos
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 6
- Last comment by Urs
- Last Active Oct 26th 2010

I started at cohesive (infinity,1)-topos a section van Kampen theorem

In the cohesive $\infty$-topos itself the theorem holds trivially. The interesting part is, I think, to which extent it restricts to the concrete cohesive objects under the embedding $Conc(\mathbf{H}) \hookrightarrow \mathbf{H}$.

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicCoalgebras and Algebras in Logic
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Tim_Porter
- Comments 1
- Last comment by Tim_Porter
- Last Active Oct 25th 2010

I have added an entry on Yde Venema who is active in Coalgebras etc. in Modal Logic.

He has looked at arrow logics that I would be interested in others views on as they may be useful. They seem to be related to a from of category in which composition is a relation. (but I have not read his crash course on them in detail yet.)

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicunbounded operator
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Todd_Trimble
- Comments 1
- Last comment by Todd_Trimble
- Last Active Oct 25th 2010

I’ve had a first pass at some (mostly minor) tidying up of unbounded operator: some reformatting, some editing of the English. More to come. There is a a lot of useful material in that article and it would be great to have some more dedicated articles on spectral theory. (Note to self, perhaps.)

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicmanifold with boundary (and corners)
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 5
- Last comment by Urs
- Last Active Oct 25th 2010

created stub for manifold with boundary – but not good yet

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicdelayed homotopy
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 1
- Last comment by Urs
- Last Active Oct 25th 2010

expanded delayed homotopy

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicfree resolutions of 2-categories
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 1
- Last comment by Urs
- Last Active Oct 25th 2010

wrote a brief remark (non-exhaustive) about free resolutions of strict 2-categories at 2-category – Model structure – free resolutions

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicoo-Chern-Simons theory - contents
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 1
- Last comment by Urs
- Last Active Oct 23rd 2010

created a floating TOC infinity-Chern-Simons theory - contents and added it to the relevant pages

in the process I also created a stub for Courant sigma model

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicsymplectic Lie n-algebroid
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 1
- Last comment by Urs
- Last Active Oct 23rd 2010

I renamed n-symplectic manifold into symplectic Lie n-algebroid and then expanded that entry

I also brushed up Courant algebroid a bit

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicModuli Problems and DG-Lie Algebras
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 1
- Last comment by Urs
- Last Active Oct 22nd 2010

created reference-entry Moduli Problems and DG-Lie Algebras

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicHochschild complex as function complex on derived loop space
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 1
- Last comment by Urs
- Last Active Oct 21st 2010

I added to Hochschild homology in the section Function algebra on derived loop space a statement and proof of the theorem that “the function complex $C(\mathcal{L}X)$ on the derived loop space $C(\mathcal{L}C)$ is the Hochschild homology complex of $C(X)$”.

There is a curious aspect to this: we are to compute the corresponding pushout in $\infty$-algebras. But in the literature on Hochschild homology, the pushout is of course taken not in algebras, but in

$HH_k(C(X)) := Tor_k(C(X), C(X))_{C(X) \otimes C(X)} \,.$*modules*So how is that $HH$-complex actually an derived algebra?

The solution of this little conundrum is remarkably trivial using Badzioch-Berger-Lurie’s result on homotopy T-algebras .This tells us that we may model the $\infty$-algebras as simplicial copresheaves on our syntactic category $T$, using the left Bousfield localizatoin of the

*injective*model structure at maps that enforce the algebra property.But since we are computing a

*pushout*and since the traditional bar complex provides a cofibrant resolution of our pushout diagram already in the unlocalized structure, and since left Bousfield localization does not affect the cofibrations, due to all these reasons we may (or actually: have to) compute the pushout of $\infty$-algebras as just a pushout in simplicial copresheaves.In particular it follows that the pushout of our product-preserving coproseheaves is not actually product-presrving itself. Instread, it is (the simplicial set underlying) the standard Hochschild complex. So everything comes together. We know that

*if*we wanted to find the actual $\infty$-algebra structure on this, we’d have to form the fibrant replacement in the localized model structure. That would make a bit of machinery kick in and actually produce the $\infty$-algebra structure on the Hochschild complex for us.But if we don’t feel like doing that, we don’t have to. The homotopy groups of our simplicial copresheaf won’t change by that replacement.

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicconcrete (oo,1)-sheaf
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 1
- Last comment by Urs
- Last Active Oct 21st 2010

cretated concrete (infinity,1)-sheaf

- Discussion Type
- discussion topictopological oo-groupoid
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 3
- Last comment by Urs
- Last Active Oct 21st 2010

finally: stub for topological infinity-groupoid

main point there: the reference! :-)

- Discussion Type
- discussion topic∞-connected (∞,1)-topos
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Mike Shulman
- Comments 3
- Last comment by Mike Shulman
- Last Active Oct 21st 2010

I split off ∞-connected (∞,1)-topos from locally ∞-connected (∞,1)-topos and added a proof that a locally ∞-connected (∞,1)-topos is ∞-connected iff the left adjoint $\Pi$ preserves the terminal object, just as in the 1-categorical case. I also added a related remark to shape of an (∞,1)-topos saying that when H is locally ∞-connected, its shape is represented by $\Pi(*)$.

I hope that these are correct, but it would be helpful if someone with a little more $\infty$-categorical confidence could make sure I’m not assuming something that doesn’t carry over from the 1-categorical world.

- Discussion Type
- discussion topiccartesian closed (oo,1)-category
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 1
- Last comment by Urs
- Last Active Oct 20th 2010

started a stub for cartesian closed (infinity,1)-category

- Discussion Type
- discussion topiceffective Lie groupoid
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 1
- Last comment by Urs
- Last Active Oct 20th 2010

stub for effective Lie groupoid

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicFinite Topological Spaces-Project
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Eric
- Comments 17
- Last comment by Tim_Porter
- Last Active Oct 19th 2010

I put some very very basic notes down at Finite Topological Spaces-Project (timporter) trying to get the ball rolling.

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicepimorphism in an (oo,1)-category
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 1
- Last comment by Urs
- Last Active Oct 19th 2010

created the obvious epimorphism in an (infinity,1)-category

- Discussion Type
- discussion topiclocally connected site
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 2
- Last comment by Mike Shulman
- Last Active Oct 18th 2010

Mike,

I have expanded your discussion of the sheaf topos on a locally connected site at locally connected site. Please check if you can live with what I did.

- Discussion Type
- discussion topiccohesive site
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 1
- Last comment by Urs
- Last Active Oct 18th 2010

added to cohesive site an example in the section Examples – families of sets. It is intentionally simplistic. And depending on which axioms we settle on, it is a counter-example. But maybe still of some use.

- Discussion Type
- discussion topictangent category
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Eric
- Comments 5
- Last comment by Urs
- Last Active Oct 18th 2010

I presume that

## Definition

Let $C$ be a category with pullbacks. Then the

**tangent category**$T_C$ of $C$ is the category whose- objects are pairs $(A,\mathcal{A})$ with $A \in Ob(C)$ and with $\mathcal{A}$ an abelian group object in the overcategory $C/B$;

contained a minor typo, so I replaced $C/B$ with $C/A$.

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicinternal diagram
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by zskoda
- Comments 9
- Last comment by FinnLawler
- Last Active Oct 17th 2010

New entry internal diagram, generalizing internal functor.

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicfree operads
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 2
- Last comment by zskoda
- Last Active Oct 16th 2010

added a stubby section on free operads (free on a "collection") to operad, but a bit example-less at the moment. Have to run...

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicconnected category
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by DavidRoberts
- Comments 3
- Last comment by Mike Shulman
- Last Active Oct 16th 2010

Added another characterisation at connected category, this time in terms of the localisation at all arrows.

- Discussion Type
- discussion topictotally connected geometric morphism
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Mike Shulman
- Comments 1
- Last comment by Mike Shulman
- Last Active Oct 15th 2010

Created totally connected geometric morphism.

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicReidemeister moves
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Tim_Porter
- Comments 5
- Last comment by Tim_Porter
- Last Active Oct 15th 2010

Please check the statement of Reidemeister’s theorem at Reidemeister moves, I was not that happy with the precise wording of the previous version as it made everything look as if it was happening in the plane, rather than indicating that what was happening in the plane mirrored what was happening in 3-dimensions. (Note that there was a discussion on MO, [here], on the proof.)

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicFully formal fix
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by TobyBartels
- Comments 2
- Last comment by Todd_Trimble
- Last Active Oct 15th 2010

A minor correction to fully formal ETCS was suggested to me on my Wikipedia talk page. So I implemented it.

- Discussion Type
- discussion topictopological operad
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 2
- Last comment by zskoda
- Last Active Oct 15th 2010

wrote something at topological operad

- Discussion Type
- discussion topiclittle k-cubes operad
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 1
- Last comment by Urs
- Last Active Oct 15th 2010

I am being asked for a list of references on the little disks operad, their action on higher categories, their higher traces, higher centers, etc.

So I went and improved the entry little k-cubes operad a little. Copied over some theorems, and then created/expanded the list of references.

If you have a favorite reference not yet listed there, this would be a good chance to list it, as I wil now point the people who asked me to this list

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicHigher dimensional Automata etc.
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Tim_Porter
- Comments 1
- Last comment by Tim_Porter
- Last Active Oct 14th 2010

This area is linked to cubical sets and I just came on a recent paper by Glynn Winskel and Sam Staton, that may be of interest as it links several of the models for concurrency with presheaves. The paper is here.

(Edit: I have also linked to another paper by Winskel,

*Events, causality, and symmetry*, (online version), from 2009. This may be useful for various aspects of the Physics-Theoretical Computer Science/Logic interface. It is well written and reasonably chatty.)

- Discussion Type
- discussion topictopology / geometry stubs
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 21
- Last comment by TobyBartels
- Last Active Oct 14th 2010

in the course of last night’s events, I created a handful of stubs for some basic concepts:

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicTemplate page link
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Stephen Britton
- Comments 3
- Last comment by TobyBartels
- Last Active Oct 14th 2010

I fixed the link on Template page where it reads

“You can look at its source code” to

“You can look at its source code” where this link actually works.

- Discussion Type
- discussion topic2-groupoid
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 23
- Last comment by Mike Shulman
- Last Active Oct 14th 2010

added stuff to 2-groupoid.