Not signed in (Sign In)

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).
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorJonAwbrey
    • CommentTimeOct 8th 2009
    • (edited Oct 8th 2009)

    Just a fing on the stringer so I don't forget about the \mathfrak{T}-biscuits that Urs served up in the Cafe about hyperstructures — and the links to triadicity that I thought I saw for a moment there before they were disapparated.

    It's a perennial issue so I'm sure it will come up again.

    Maybe not 2-day, maybe not 2-morrow …

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorJonAwbrey
    • CommentTimeOct 8th 2009
    • (edited Oct 8th 2009)

    Is there any way I could get the Cafe hosts to copy the Forum with the posts that were deleted from the Borisov thread?

    There's a kind of refractory period in my brain where I tend to forget things that I've just written down, and it's making it nearly impossible for me to remember what it was I thought — for a second — I saw there.

    It would be much appreciated …

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeOct 8th 2009

    You would have to ask John Baez, he must have deleted it.

    Did he contact you about it?

    If and when you get back either the material or your memory about it, I would like to ask you to explain more what it is all about. When I saw it on the blog, I couldn't make heads or tails of it and came away with no good idea of what you actually meant to say. I am guessing that this is also the reason why John removed the material.

    At one point you said something about an "exercise for the reader". You should maybe know that there might be a huge gap between what you expect the rest of us known about your material, and what we actually do know.

    Because, to be frank again, I have no idea whatsoever yet what "triadicity" is or has to do with higher categories or hyperstructures. In fact, I can't make much of the comments further above in this thread here either. I keep having the feeling that you are assuming some private internal language has been well accepted here, where in fact it has not yet, not among the rest of us, at least.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorJonAwbrey
    • CommentTimeOct 8th 2009
    • (edited Oct 8th 2009)

    Yes, I can understand how the exchange that occurred there might have been judged off-topic for a thread dedicated to the specifics of Borisov's paper, but I think it was the link you gave to hyperstructures and especially the allusion to those remarks of Nils Baas that resonated with longtime questions in my own studies.

    "Triadicity" is just a reference to triadic or ternary relations — their prevalence in logic and math and physics.

    Aside from the fact that many phyla of important objects in mathematics are 3-adic relations — groups to name just one — category theorists are known to remark on the fact that arrow composition is a 3-place relation and that a reliance on this operation is one of the differences that make a difference between category theory and set theory, at least, in practice — as working media of research and communication.

    But there is another place where 3-adic relations are pivotal, and that is in the definition of a natural transformation.

    Have to run off to lunch …

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorJonAwbrey
    • CommentTimeOct 8th 2009
    • (edited Oct 8th 2009)

    Well, if you're going to be frank, I guess I must be earnest …

    I wasn't trying to be cryptic … this time … I think I was just assuming — partly from all the references I've seen to the Kauffman, Spencer-Brown, Peirce Gedankenkreis — that folks hereabouts would've run across these themes before.