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-theory cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics 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 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 homology homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory k-theory kan 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 natural nforum nlab nonassociative 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 topological 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).
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 13th 2021

    re-did the typesetting of the adjoint triple with TikZ

    diff, v47, current

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeNov 25th 2021

    I changed several occurrences of f if_i to f !f_!, because I couldn’t figure out what else it might have meant. If this was wrong, please correct.

    diff, v48, current

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeNov 26th 2021

    This may need attention:

    Those “f if_i” were introduced in rev 46 by a user signing as Mike Alex.

    It looks wrong to me. In your latest version, what’s the very last morphism (here) meant to be?

    Maybe I am missing something, as I am looking at this now without leisure, in a stolen minute.

    But in my last rev 45, the arrow in question (last one in Def. 3.2) seems evident: precomposition with the (f 1f *)(f_1 \dashv f^\ast)-unit on AA.

    Right now I don’t see what should be wrong with that, or how the current modification even makes sense.

    Okay, let me double check… Yes, my last rev 45 agrees with May et al.’s Prop. 2.11, p. 6.

    Have to look into something else now, but unless there is a good reason not to, I feel we need to revert back to rev 45

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeNov 26th 2021

    Don’t forget what you added for rev 47 as mentioned in #1.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTime7 days ago

    So I have now reverted that one equation (here) to what I had up to rev 45, before “Mike Alex” changed it in rev 46 in a way that I can’t make sense of.

    For what it’s worth, the version that I reverted to is verbatim that in Prop. 2.11 of May et al. (p. 6), though the point in question seems completely elementary and shouldn’t need a citation.

    If anyone (such as user Mike Alex, who I don’t recall to have met) still thinks that I am missing something and that there is need to modify the entry at this point, please do say so here in the forum comments, so that we can discuss.

    diff, v49, current

Add your comments
  • Please log in or leave your comment as a "guest post". If commenting as a "guest", please include your name in the message as a courtesy. Note: only certain categories allow guest posts.
  • To produce a hyperlink to an nLab entry, simply put double square brackets around its name, e.g. [[category]]. To use (La)TeX mathematics in your post, make sure Markdown+Itex is selected below and put your mathematics between dollar signs as usual. Only a subset of the usual TeX math commands are accepted: see here for a list.

  • (Help)