# Start a new discussion

## Not signed in

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

## Site Tag Cloud

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

• Created an article for DisCoCat (which is a major industry in the Oxford Quantum Group), plus an incoming link from linguistics

• table to be !include-ed for cross-linking into relevant entries

• touched the formatting of the pointers to references on characteristic of $E_\infty$-rings

• changed link for gitit from gitit.net (a yale group not related to this page) to the github page for gitit.

mray

• Made a start on this at orthogonal subcategory problem. There should be much more to say about this with regard to various generalities in model category theory. Needs some clean-up. Please have a look.

• The individual morphisms $f_i$ are not usually faithfully flat – any faithfully flat morphism is surjective. I think they are also not quasicompact in general. See the definition of fpqc cover in the stacks project:

https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/01K2

Anonymous

• There has GOT to be a better photograph than that! Is there anyone here in Oxford? Can they go and get a picture for us?

• (Hi, I’m new)

I added some examples relating too simple to be simple to the idea of unbiased definitions. The point is that we often define things to be simple whenever they are not a non-trivial (co)product of two objects, and we can extend this definition to cover the “to simple to be simple case” by removing the word “two”. The trivial object is often the empty (co)product. If we had been using an unbiased definition we would have automatically covered this case from the beginning.

I also noticed that the page about the empty space referred to the naive definition of connectedness as being

“a space is connected if it cannot be partitioned into disjoint nonempty open subsets”

but this misses out the word “two” and so is accidentally giving the sophisticated definition! I’ve now corrected it to make it wrong (as it were).

• Added information about weak enrichment in a bicategory. I put this in the idea section as well as the the definition section. I also added a reference. I’m sure there is a better reference out there but I couldn’t find one that is publicly available.

• Expanded and reorganised the entry.

• starting something. Not done yet but need to save

• Explain the connection with enriched monads

• Add page structure, idea section.

I preserved most of the original page under a definition section.

• stub for ABJM theory, whose holographic duality Matt Reece kindly points out to me is the expected M2-brane analog of what I was looking for in the M5-brane case

• Person page on a Turing recipient having a major work on causality, to record the references.

• Page created, but author did not leave any comments.

• How would people feel about renaming distributor to profunctor? I seem to recall that when this came up on the Cafe, I was the main proponent of the former over the latter, and I've since changed my mind.

• Begin a page on $(n \times k)$-categories, which are $n$-categories internal to $k$-categories.

• I made a little addition to opposite category, pointing out some amusing nuances regarding the opposite of a $V$-enriched category when $V$ is merely braided. This remark could surely be clarified, but I think you’ll get the idea.