Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below
Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
I think it would also be closer to the truth to call it a conjecture than a theorem, unless there are actually no examples of “naturally occurring” bicategories that are not known to be biequivalent to “naturally occurring” 2-categories. However, “conjecture” suffers from the same issues in “naturally occurring” not being well-defined.
I think “observation” would work well.
I think “observation” would work well.
I like observation much better than theorem :)
Just to say that it looks like you are expert on the subject matter and care about it, in which case you should go ahead and make edits to the entry as you see fit. It is certainly in need of improvement.
What the entry needs most is any indication that it’s subject matter exists at all, namely references that attribute to Steve Lack whatever it is the entry wants to claim is being attributed to Steve Lack. (Asking Google for this gives essentially just the nLab entry back, which is worrying.)
It may be the case that the example of polynomial functors may also be characterised as a Kleisli–Eilenberg–Moore type situation, because the bicategory of polynomial functors can be seen as a Kleisli category for a relative pseudomonad, as briefly discussed in this talk by Garner.
1 to 10 of 10