Processing math: 100%
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 complex 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 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 nforum 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).
    • I have written an article closed-projection characterization of compactness, so as to record a nice way of proving the Tychonoff theorem that is due to Clementino and Tholen. It’s rather direct and elementary, which doesn’t involve ultrafilters or nets or any such machinery. This might make it a possibility for a strong undergraduate classroom. (Munkres also has a proof which I haven’t cross-checked; the one I wrote up involves a smidge of categorical terminology, notably inverse limits.)

      I didn’t want to stick in the proof at Tychonoff theorem as that article might be getting a bit bloated, but I did link there to the new article.

    • I created Cantor space to record its definition as a locale, but goodness knows there is no end to what might be written about it.

    • I have given product topological space an semi-informal Idea-section that means to quickly and transparently tell the reader what they need to know.

      This is in reaction to what we presently have at Tychonoff product which presently seems needlesly intransparent for the purpose of a reader who just wants to know what the open subsets actually are.

      I was thinking about merging product topological space with Tychonoff product. I haven”t yet, but mostly just due to lack of energy.

    • The entry for infinitesimal extension said that an infinitesimal extension of rings was an epimorphism of rings with nilpotent kernel. I’ve changed this to say a quotient map of rings with nilpotent kernel. I hope this is correct: for example, localization maps are ring epimorphisms, and often have zero kernel (so in particular, nilpotent kernel) but geometrically these correspond to dense open inclusions, which are in no sense infinitesimal extensions.

    • Presently I am concerned with the following: I want to teach some basics of limits and colimits of topological spaces to undergraduates. I had tried to gently introduce some category theoretic terminology as I introduced topological spaces as such, but a little testing reveals that part of the audience would rather not see these side remarks turn out to become required reading.

      But now since all the shapes of diagrams that I’d be about to consider anyway are free, I figured I circumvent the need to speak of diagrams as functors by restricting to free domains and simply giving everything explicitly in components, with the underlying category theory again relegated to side-remarks that may be ignored at will.

      I am trying my hands at an exposition of this kind in a new entry free diagram.

      Eventually this kind of material might also be worthwhile as introductory exposition at limits and colimits by example.

    • I have a request to the logic experts:

      The entry classical logic is a bit thin. I would like to be able to point to it so that readers who don’t already know about it all, get away with a decent idea of what is meant. Might somebody have the energy to add a few lines?

      Of course I could add a few lines myself, but I imagine it would be more efficient if some expert here did it from scratch, instead of having to improve on what I would come up with.

      Especially it would be nice if the following keywords were at least mentioned and maybe briefly commented on in the entry:

      Also for instance the keyword constructive anything is presently missing from the entry.

      Thanks!

    • I added a sentence on ’eigenfunction’ to eigenvector.

    • it seems we were lacking order topology, so I created a minimum and cross-linked a bit.

    • partition of unity, locally finite cover

      Will put up some stuff about Dold’s trick of taking a not-necessarily point finite partition of unity and making a partition of unity. There is a case when I know it works and a case I’m really not sure about - I need to find where the argument falls down because I get too strong a result. I’ll discuss this in the thread soon, and port it over when it is stable.

    • I have touched the entry K-topology. Polished the definition and spelled out in some detail why it is not regular (while clearly Hausdorff).

      The example which used to be in the entry (rational numbers with their subspace K-topology here) ends with

      This space can be used to construct a quasitopological groupoid which isn’t a topological groupoid.

      This statement should be accompanied with some reference. I suppose it refers to a construction that David R. (who wrote this back in 2010, rev #1) used in one of his articles?

    • Wrote out a proof for paracompact Hausdorff spaces are normal.

      (By the way, I also looked at TopoSpaces here to check what they offer, and am a bit dubious about their step 5. But maybe I am misreading it. In any case, I feel there is a simpler way to state the proof.)

    • I have added to Galois connection some more remarks to the Idea section, and expanded the Examples-section with the material that Todd wrote here.

    • found it necessary to split off geometric realization of categories as a separate entry, recorded Quillen’s theorems A and B there

      all very briefly. I notice that David Roberts has more on his personal web (have included it as a reference)

    • I did a little editing over at empty set; the query-box discussion of 00 looked like it could be summarized with dispatch and relegated to a remark. Revert back or re-edit if you don’t like it.

    • I noticed that the entry disjoint union had no pointer to or from either of dependent sum, dependent sum type.

      I have added the bare pointers now (no energy for more now). But this means some basic examples are missing in these entries.

    • I was un-graying some links at epsilontic analysis. Among the titles of non-existing entries that are still being requested is

      • “classical analysis”

      • “topological property”.

      Is it likely/desireable that we will have entries with these titles? Maybe we should change these links to point to “analysis” and to “topology” instead?

    • I started an entry for Rijke’s join of maps. How do you place the * lower?

    • I have added both to proof and to experiment pointer to

      with the quote (from p. 2):

      we claim that the role of rigorous proof in mathematics is functionally analogous to the role of experiment in the natural sciences

    • I added a remark about the contravariant Yoneda embedding cC(c,) to the page on the Yoneda embedding.

      It’s pretty elementary, but I think worth mentioning for those new to category theory that this is just the Yoneda embedding of the opposite category Y:Cop[(Cop)op,Sets]=[C,Sets].

    • I move null set to null subset and added more about how these are defined in unusual contexts.

    • I added the theorem that complete norms on a real vector space are unique (up to topological equivalence) at norm#dreamUnique. (This is false in classical mathematics, of course, but it’s true in dream mathematics.) Also true for F-norms.

    • expanded endomorphism operad

      (it’s still a bit rough, but I am a bit rushed and have no time to polish)

    • I added to uniformly regular space a definition of “uniform apartness space” and a proof that under uniform regularity, these coincide with ordinary uniform spaces. I think this is interesting because it seems to be one of the purposes of uniform regularity (and local decomposability).

    • I rescued an empty page and wrote F-norm.

    • This theorem, with a constructive proof, is now at convergence space. (The usual proof in undergraduate metric-space theory uses both excluded middle and countable choice1, so I wrote this mostly to verify that it is actually perfectly constructive in the general setting.)


      1. ETA: And the straightforward generalization to nonsequential spaces would use choice of arbitrarily high cardinality. 

    • Back in 2015, Bas Spitters wrote filter space. These are even more general than convergence spaces! (In a filter space, even if two filters both converge to the same point, their intersection might not.) I've put in the definition from the cited paper by Martin Hyland.

    • Since I wondered what they were, I started an entry Gorenstein ring spectrum, which then needed Gorenstein ring. Not sure I’m much the wiser as to their importance. There should be a lot to say about related duality.

    • I realized that we had a stub entry “configuration space” with the physics concept, and a stub entry “Fadell’s configuration space” with the maths concept, and no interrelation between them, also without any examples. So I created a disambiguation page

      and then

      but I also left

      separate for the moment, thinking that in principle the term in matematics may be understood more generally, too. But maybe something should be merged here.

      I added the example of the unordered configuration space of as a model for the classifying space for the symmetric group to the relevant entries. But otherwise they do remain stubby, alas.

    • In the nLab article on the universal enveloping algebra, the section describing the Hopf algebra structure originally stated that “the coproduct Δ:ULU(LL)ULUL is induced by the diagonal map LLL.”

      I assume that this is a mistake, and I have since changed the coproduct to a product ×. However, I don’t know a great deal about Hopf algebras, so please correct me if I’ve made a mistake here.

    • In line with the “pages named after theorems” philosophy, I’ve created toposes are extensive, including in particular the (somewhat hard to track down) constructive proof that a cocomplete elementary topos is infinitary extensive.