Not signed in (Sign In)

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

  • 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 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.

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).
    • In the term elimination row of the table in section 2, it seems to be taking x:Xx: X as a variable under the bar. It should be the application of ff to an element judged to be in XX, no? As we have it in section 3.

    • added pointer to this video talk

      which I just happened upon from André’s webpage. Apart from the content, this is performed quite remarkably.

      diff, v34, current

    • Added remark on geometric realizations of pairs of adjoint functors

      Roman T

      diff, v17, current

    • In the abstract definition, in the 2nd paragraph about the κ\kappa-directed version, I’d say It looks that the bound should be “lower” instead of “upper”, so the direction in the first two paragraphs both go downward.

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

      Anonymous

      v1, current

    • Ooops, failed to use my full name during edit!

      Linas Vepstas

      v1, current

    • am finally giving W¯G\overline{W}G its own entry, for ease of hyperlinking to it

      v1, current

    • In the definition, the article states "every object in C is a small object (which follows from 2 and 3)". The bracketed remark doesn't seem quite right to me, since neither 2 nor 3 talk about smallness of objects. Presumably this should better be phrased as in A.1.1 of HTT, "assuming 3, this is equivalent to the assertion that every object in S is small".

      Am I right? I don't (yet) feel confident enough with my category theory to change this single-handedly.
    • It’s still not quite right, is it? (here) After

      Moreover, up to equivalence, every Grothendieck topos arises this way:

      isn’t there the clause of accessible embedding missing? I.e. instead of

      the equivalence classes of left exact reflective subcategories PSh(𝒞)\mathcal{E} \hookrightarrow PSh(\mathcal{C}) of the category of presheaves

      it should have

      the equivalence classes of left exact reflective and accessivley embedded subcategories PSh(𝒞)\mathcal{E} \hookrightarrow PSh(\mathcal{C}) of the category of presheaves

      Or else, by the prop that follows, it should say

      the equivalence classes of left exact reflective and locally presentable subcategories PSh(𝒞)\mathcal{E} \hookrightarrow PSh(\mathcal{C}) of the category of presheaves

      No?

      (This is just a question. I didn’t make an edit. Yet.)

      diff, v3, current

    • I have started a stub on this. (Isn’t there a nice nPOV interpretation of this?)

    • brief category:people-entry for hyperlinking references

      v1, current

    • brief category:people-entry for hyperlinking references

      v1, current

    • brief category:people-entry for hyperlinking references

      v1, current

    • brief category:people-entry for hyperlinking references

      v1, current

    • See also the discussion here.

    • added the statement that monos are preserved by homotopy pushout.

      diff, v13, current

    • brief category:people-entry for hyperlinking references

      v1, current

    • The term “Lagrange’s theorem” used to redirect to index of a subgroup, where it is mentioned only towards the end. So I am giving it its own little entry now.

      v1, current

    • I added some more detail on the p-torsion of a group scheme

      Hari Rau-Murthy

      diff, v6, current

    • starting an entry, for the moment mainly in order to record the fact that “crossed homomorphisms” are equivalently homomorphic sections of the corresponding semidirect product group projection. This is obvious, but is there a reference that makes it explicit?

      v1, current

    • added to homotopy fixed point a discussion of how the traditional ad-hoc formula that one finds in much of the literature (namely X hG=Hom G(EG,X)X^{h G} = Hom_G(E G, X)) follows form first principles.

      (This is for completeness, not because it is a big deal.)

    • Started lift.

      weak factorization system has redirects from: lifting property, right lifting property, left lifting property, lifting problem, lifting problems.

      Would it be better to have these redirect to lift?

    • Finally splitting this off from lattice QCD in order to record some references. Gave it a rough Idea-section, but this remains a stub.

      v1, current

    • I have been adding material to partial combinatory algebra.

      I plan on linking this to an article on functional completeness for cartesian closed categories, and on deduction theorems for various simple calculi.

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

      v1, current

    • added a bare minimum on (p,q)(p,q)5-brane webs.

      diff, v4, current

    • I added a couple more references to Bayesian reasoning used in physics.

      diff, v15, current

    • starting something, not done yet

      v1, current

    • I have created formal concept analysis, as a place to put material from the Café discussions, but also to develop some of the concepts a bit further.

    • starting a collection of commented references here. This is to be !include-ed in the References-section of related entries. Therefore this entry starts out with a sub-section and contains nothing else.

      v1, current

    • I’m not entirely happy with the introduction (“Statement”) to the page axiom of choice. On the one hand, it implies that the axiom of choice is something to be considered relative to a given category CC (which is reasonable), but it then proceeds to give the external formulation of AC for such a CC, which I think is usually not the best meaning of “AC relative to CC”. I would prefer to give the Statement as “every surjection in the category of sets splits” and then discuss later that analogous statements for other categories (including both internal and external ones) can also be called “axioms of choice” — but with emphasis on the internal ones, since they are what correspond to the original axiom of choice (for sets) in the internal logic.

      (I would also prefer to change “epimorphism” for “surjection” or “regular/effective epimorphism”, especially when generalizing away from sets.)

    • I am giving this group a stub entry just to have a decent place to record today’s

      For this entry not to be all too lonely I made Spin(10,2) point to D=12 supergravity, for the moment. In the long run all this derserves to be expanded on, clearly.

      v1, current