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 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 infinity integration integration-theory k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic manifolds mathematics 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

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
    • CommentTimeMay 31st 2023

    finding that an entry like this has been missing all along (all we seem to have had was this paragraph at enriched category) I have now created it with some minimum content, for completeness

    v1, current

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorvarkor
    • CommentTimeMay 31st 2023

    Is “enriched product category” a common term? I think I’ve only seen this construction referred to as the “tensor product of enriched categories” (or similar). I would probably expect “enriched product category” to refer to a cartesian product in the 2-category VCat.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 31st 2023

    No, I tried to find the most systematic term.

    How about “enriched tensor product category”, as a compromise?

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeMay 31st 2023

    My experience matches varkor’s.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 31st 2023

    My experience is no different, but I make decisions based on internal consultation :-).

    Feel free to rename the entry, but please keep the current title as redirect, not to break links.

    (I’ll be offline in a minute.)

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 31st 2023

    Coming back online…

    Just for the heck of it I asked Google who else says “enriched product category” and the answer is:

    Bartosz Milewski (here and here) and hackage.haskell (here).

    The close variant “product of enriched categories” (without adjective) is used (apart from Bartosz Milewski) by John Baez (here), Forcey et al. (here and here) and more.

    A thesis here even says “Kelly’s product of enriched categories”.

    In any case, in practice the key advantage of “enriched product category” is the systematics, for instance it allows one to say (as Bartosz does here) things like “… the (enriched) product category…”.

    But I have added more alternative redirects and won’t care if the entry gets renamed.

    diff, v3, current

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorvarkor
    • CommentTimeMay 31st 2023

    In any case, in practice the key advantage of “enriched product category” is the systematics, for instance it allows one to say (as Bartosz does here) things like “… the (enriched) product category…”.

    I suppose my opinion is that “tensor product of (enriched) categories” works just as well, though I grant it’s slightly more of a mouthful. One could probably elide “product” instead and simply say “tensor of (enriched) categories”, which is roughly as as the current name.

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorvarkor
    • CommentTimeJul 28th 2023

    Rename page to “tensor product of enriched categories”, which is the standard term.

    diff, v4, current

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeAug 23rd 2023

    added pointer to:

    diff, v6, current