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.
   • CommentAuthorEric
   • CommentTimeMay 23rd 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Eric
   Format: MarkdownItexNot sure if it is a CSS/browser issue, but coloneq ($\coloneq$) is not rendering correctly for me on the nLab (or nForum). It looks like ":-" to me. (Firefox 3.6)

   Not sure if it is a CSS/browser issue, but coloneq ($\coloneq$) is not rendering correctly for me on the nLab (or nForum). It looks like “:-” to me. (Firefox 3.6)

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorHarry Gindi
   • CommentTimeMay 23rd 2010
   • (edited May 23rd 2010)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Harry Gindi
   Format: MarkdownItexSame in opera. Why don't you just use $:=$?

   Same in opera. Why don’t you just use $:=$?

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeMay 23rd 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexThat's what "coloneq" is supposed to be! To get := you need coloneqq, two q's. I have no idea why they named them that way.

   That’s what “coloneq” is supposed to be! To get := you need coloneqq, two q’s. I have no idea why they named them that way.

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorEric
   • CommentTimeMay 23rd 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Eric
   Format: MarkdownItexhehe :) Ok. I think coloneq appears several places on the nLab when it should be coloneqq, but that could be my fault. I'll add these to [[special characters]].

   hehe :)

   Ok. I think coloneq appears several places on the nLab when it should be coloneqq, but that could be my fault. I’ll add these to special characters.

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorEric
   • CommentTimeMay 23rd 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Eric
   Format: MarkdownItexI searched for coloneq and replaced it with coloneqq on [[canonical morphism]] and [[smooth loop space]]. I also added coloneq and coloneqq to [[special characters]]. I might go around to a few pages and replace ":=" with coloneqq (time permitting), but that is not a big deal. I'll likely just keep a passive eye out for it. This is just a minor cosmetic thing (for a Lab Elf). No big deal.

   I searched for coloneq and replaced it with coloneqq on canonical morphism and smooth loop space. I also added coloneq and coloneqq to special characters.

   I might go around to a few pages and replace “:=” with coloneqq (time permitting), but that is not a big deal. I’ll likely just keep a passive eye out for it. This is just a minor cosmetic thing (for a Lab Elf). No big deal.

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
   • CommentTimeMay 23rd 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: TobyBartels
   Format: MarkdownItexThere are (at least) two different LaTeX character packages that provide something called `\coloneq`. In one of them (the one which iTeX mimics), that command produces ‘$\coloneq$’, while you need `\coloneqq` to produce ‘$\coloneqq$’. In the other, the command produces ‘$\coloneqq$’, while you need (I think) `\colonminus` to get ‘$\coloneq$’. So people who spell it wrong may just be familiar with the other package.

   There are (at least) two different LaTeX character packages that provide something called \coloneq. In one of them (the one which iTeX mimics), that command produces ‘$\coloneq$’, while you need \coloneqq to produce ‘$\coloneqq$’. In the other, the command produces ‘$\coloneqq$’, while you need (I think) \colonminus to get ‘$\coloneq$’. So people who spell it wrong may just be familiar with the other package.

7. • CommentRowNumber7.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeMay 23rd 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexWow, what a bad idea!

   Wow, what a bad idea!

8. • CommentRowNumber8.
   • CommentAuthorHarry Gindi
   • CommentTimeMay 23rd 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Harry Gindi
   Format: MarkdownItex> Wow, what a bad idea! I give your reaction a 10/10!

   Wow, what a bad idea!

   I give your reaction a 10/10!

9. • CommentRowNumber9.
   • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
   • CommentTimeMay 23rd 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: TobyBartels
   Format: MarkdownItex>Wow, what a bad idea! I assume that whichever package came second didn't know about the one that came first; they're both fairly old and may even predate CTAN. (But that's just a guess; I don't really know the history.)

   Wow, what a bad idea!

   I assume that whichever package came second didn’t know about the one that came first; they’re both fairly old and may even predate CTAN. (But that’s just a guess; I don’t really know the history.)

10. • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeMay 23rd 2010
    • PermaLink
    Author: Mike Shulman
    Format: MarkdownItexI've never understood why anyone would use `\coloneq` for $\coloneq$, since there's nothing "eq" about it. `\colonminus` makes much more sense.

    I’ve never understood why anyone would use \coloneq for $\coloneq$, since there’s nothing “eq” about it. \colonminus makes much more sense.

11. • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeMay 23rd 2010
    • PermaLink
    Author: TobyBartels
    Format: MarkdownItexThe theory is `eq` for one bar, `eqq` for two. Compare `\leq` (‘$\leq$’) and `\leqq` (‘$\leqq$’), where that convention comes from and makes more sense.

    The theory is eq for one bar, eqq for two. Compare \leq (‘$\leq$’) and \leqq (‘$\leqq$’), where that convention comes from and makes more sense.

12. • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeMay 24th 2010
    • PermaLink
    Author: Mike Shulman
    Format: MarkdownItexI, um, see. I agree that the convention makes sense for `\leq` and `\leqq` but that doesn't mean that it makes any sense for `\coloneq` and `\coloneqq`. If that's the theory, then I think someone wasn't thinking.

    I, um, see. I agree that the convention makes sense for \leq and \leqq but that doesn’t mean that it makes any sense for \coloneq and \coloneqq. If that’s the theory, then I think someone wasn’t thinking.

13. • CommentRowNumber13.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeMay 26th 2010
    • PermaLink
    Author: TobyBartels
    Format: MarkdownItexWell, *I* like that theory. I even `\let \neqq \ne` to take advantage of it (and never use `\neq`, nor `\le` for that matter). However, I would probably pick `\colonminus` and `\coloneqq` as the least ambiguous terms, avoiding `\coloneq` entirely.

    Well, I like that theory. I even \let \neqq \ne to take advantage of it (and never use \neq, nor \le for that matter). However, I would probably pick \colonminus and \coloneqq as the least ambiguous terms, avoiding \coloneq entirely.