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.
added this pointer:
added also pointer to
(who does finally switch terminology from “simplicial groupoid” to “groupoid enriched over simplicial sets” but still does not state the definition of enriched groupoids)
together with more comments on the history of the notion.
Presumably the assumption that $V$ be a cosmos can be relaxed to simply asking for $V$ to be a cartesian monoidal category?
how about formulating it this way:
…a cartesian monoidal category (serving as an cosmos for enrichment)…
I think varkor is suggesting that the cosmos (or cartesian cosmos) assumptions are rather more than what is needed. In that case, I wouldn’t say “cosmos for enrichment”, but “base for enrichment” or something similar. Not sure we have a page that accommodates that extra generality, but if not, I think we should.
I know, that’s why I suggested the reformulation “serving as…”.
Now base of enrichment is redirecting to cosmos. Feel invited to split it off as a separate entry.
Have to admit that I am not sure what you are getting at with either of these comments.
We need a cartesian monoidal base of enrichment in order to state the enriched existence of inverses. The entry is clear about this, and the notation seemed just fine.
Whether this encompasses “ordered groups” is something that the entry on ordered groups needs to deal with. The notion of enriched groupoids is what it is.
Thanks for saying, now I understand your first comment. I am regularly using “$\ast$” for terminal objects, it’s all over the nLab.
I think this is an issue of different conventions in different communities. I don’t see a problem with sticking with $\ast$, which is common in some communities, and people who are familiar with it would probably be just as confused by $\top$ as you are by $\ast$. The important thing is to define notation when there is any potential for confusion, and the entry does that in the first bullet point where it said “the tensor unit is a terminal object $\ast$”. If this is too far away from the use of $\ast$ in the previous line, we could just remove it from the previous line and write “let $\mathcal{V}$ be a cartesian monoidal category” and only introduce the notation $\ast$ for the terminal object in the bullet point that states explicitly that it’s a terminal object.
1 to 15 of 15