Not signed in

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

• Username
• Password
• Remember me

• Sign in using OpenID
• Remember me

• Forgot your password?
• Apply for membership

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 homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory internal-categories k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure 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 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

1. • CommentRowNumber1.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeOct 1st 2009
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownBy chance I came across an old CatTheory mailing list post by e. Dubuc, where he complains about how is work on SDG is not sufficiently recognized and asks people to speak of the "Dubuc topos". I added a remark about this to [[synthetic differential geometry]] in the section on "Well adapted models".

   By chance I came across an old CatTheory mailing list post by e. Dubuc, where he complains about how is work on SDG is not sufficiently recognized and asks people to speak of the "Dubuc topos".

   I added a remark about this to synthetic differential geometry in the section on "Well adapted models".

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorzskoda
   • CommentTimeOct 3rd 2009
   • PermaLink
   Author: zskoda
   Format: TextBut Urs, isn't it one of the points of Moerdijk-Reyes to improve on some things which "C-infinity schemes" of Dubuc have problems with ?

   But Urs, isn't it one of the points of Moerdijk-Reyes to improve on some things which "C-infinity schemes" of Dubuc have problems with ?
3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeOct 4th 2009
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownThey certainly do add various improvements, sure. I think Dubuc was just scared that his contribution to the field might be overshadowed by that. By the way, I found that remark by Dubuc curious. I had never seen before anyone openly asking people to name something after him! Usually people try to make that happen in a more indirect manner. And I also agree with Moerdijk-Reyes that for the field itself it is actually good _not_ to name ideas after people. Because that is undescriptive and every further undescriptive term just increases the tendency in math that nice simple ideas become shroufed in mystery by ill-adapted terminology. But from my own example I could tell that Dubuc was right about one thing: it wasn't clear to me how much Dubuc had worked on synthetic differential geoemtry. So, mostly as a reminder to myself, I added that link to the nLab entry.

   They certainly do add various improvements, sure. I think Dubuc was just scared that his contribution to the field might be overshadowed by that.

   By the way, I found that remark by Dubuc curious. I had never seen before anyone openly asking people to name something after him! Usually people try to make that happen in a more indirect manner.

   And I also agree with Moerdijk-Reyes that for the field itself it is actually good not to name ideas after people. Because that is undescriptive and every further undescriptive term just increases the tendency in math that nice simple ideas become shroufed in mystery by ill-adapted terminology.

   But from my own example I could tell that Dubuc was right about one thing: it wasn't clear to me how much Dubuc had worked on synthetic differential geoemtry. So, mostly as a reminder to myself, I added that link to the nLab entry.