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 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 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 history homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory k-theory lie 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 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 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 wanted to be able to use the link without it appearing in grey, so I created a stub for general relativity.

    • creating a minimum, so that the link works

      v1, current

    • a stub entry, for the moment just to make links work

      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

    • brief category:people-entry for hyerlinking 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 yperlinking 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

    • now creating this entry.

      The technical material under “Details” (here) is copied over from what I had written at reader monad – Examples – quantum reader monad. (There may still be room left to adjust the wording in order to reflect that this material moved to a new entry.)

      To this I have now added an Idea-section (here) which highlights the relation to (equivalence with) Bob Coecke’s “classical structures” (which term I made redirect to here now)

      v1, current

    • starting something, so far some paragraphs of an Idea-section (references to follow in a moment).

      v1, current

    • brief category:people-entry for hyperlinking references

      v1, current

    • created an entry modal type theory; tried to collect pointers I could find to articles which discuss the interpretation of modalities in terms of (co)monads. I was expecting to find much less, but there are a whole lot of articles discussing this. Also cross-linked with monad (in computer science).

    • 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

    • recorded some recent surveys of the status of MOND at MOND

    • starting page for reference

      Anonymous

      v1, current

    • Fixing up the example of a piecewise defined function, which had extraneous notation, but also to introduce the vertically-stacked copairing notation mirroring the ’cases’-style layout of the usual piecewise definition

      diff, v4, current

    • In the examples section of extensive category, it is stated that the category of affine schemes is infinitary extensive.

      For all I know, I was the one who stuck in that example. But is that statement actually true? I’m having trouble seeing it.

      If SS is a commutative ring over RR (by which I mean under RR (-:), does the functor S R:CAlg RCAlg RS \otimes_R -: CAlg_R \to CAlg_R preserve arbitrary cartesian products? Because it seems that’s what we basically need for the statement to be true.

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

      Anonymous

      v1, current

    • a stub entry, for the moment just to record a couple of references

      (prompted by Kohno speaking about this tomorrow, here)

      v1, current

    • I would like to include something on wheeled properads (or wheeled PROPs) in the nlab. It seems to me that a wheeled prop is something like a symmetric monoidal category with duals for every object generated by one object. Is this right? Is there a place in the litterature where i can find the relation between wheeled properads used by Merkulov and some kinds of symmetric monoidal categories with duality?

      Before changing the PROP entry to add this variant, i would like to have a nice reference on this.
    • I created a stub certified programming.

      That’s motivated from me having expanded the Idea-section at type theory. I enjoyed writing the words “is used in industry”. There are not many nnLab pages where I can write these words.

      I am saying this only half-jokingly. Somehow there is something deep going on.

      Anyway, in (the maybe unlikely) case that somebody reading this here has lots of information about the use and relevance of certified programming in industry, I’d enjoy seeing more information added to that entry.

    • Updating reference to cubical type theory. This page need more work.

      diff, v55, current

    • brief category:people-entry for hyperlinking references

      v1, current

    • I am moving the following old query box exchange from orbifold to here.

      old query box discussion:


      I am confused by this page. It starts out by boldly declaring that “An orbifold is a differentiable stack which may be presented by a proper étale Lie groupoid” but then it goes on to talk about the “traditional” definition. The traditional definition definitely does not view orbifolds as stacks. Neither does Moerdijk’s paper referenced below — there orbifolds form a 1-category.

      Personally I am not completely convinced that orbifolds are differentiable stacks. Would it not be better to start out by saying that there is no consensus on what orbifolds “really are” and lay out three points of view: traditional, Moerdijk’s “orbifolds as groupoids” (called “modern” by Adem and Ruan in their book) and orbifolds as stacks?

      Urs Schreiber: please, go ahead. It would be appreciated.


      end of old query box discussion

    • Added a quotation as well as some references that point to the importance of Freudenthal in the advent of categorical concepts and terminology.

      diff, v6, current

    • Added an Idea-section to this (previously stubby) entry — not meant to be definite, just what came to mind when finding that such a section was still lacking here:


      In mathematics, a conjecture is a proposition which is expected to be true, hence expected to have a proof, but for which no proof is (currently) known.

      Hence being a conjecture is a sociological aspect of a proposition, not a mathematical aspect: Once a proof (or else a counterexample) is found, the conjecture ceases to be a conjecture and instead becomes a theorem.

      It happens that conjectures remain unproven while being perceived as trustworthy enough that further theorems are proven assuming the conjectures – in this case the conjecture plays the role of a hypothesis in the sense of formal logic.

      For example, the “standard conjectures” in algebraic geometry serve as hypotheses in a wealth of theorems which are all proven (only) “assuming the standard conjectures” (cf. e.g. arXiv:9804123).

      In other cases the term “hypothesis” is used synonymously with “conjecture” – e.g. for the homotopy hypothesis (key cases of which have long become theorems) or the cobordism hypothesis (on which a proof has famously been claimed but not universally accepted).


      diff, v10, current

    • Added a lemma about fully faithful functors.

      Sorry for the mess, there does not seem to be a way to preview edits.

      diff, v3, current

    • one possible bit of information at flux