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 integration integration-theory k-theory lie-theory 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 nforum 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 sheaves 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
    • CommentTimeOct 6th 2010

    in reply to a question that I received, I expanded the entry (infinity,1)-functor in various directions.

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeOct 6th 2010
    My impression is that Lurie preferes description coherent homotopy functor to strongly homotopy functor (maybe both could be mentioned). At least I recall lots of coherent phrases from the corresponding treatment in the book.
    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeOct 6th 2010

    Lurie preferes description coherent homotopy functor to strongly homotopy functor

    What I wrote was in reply to a question by somebody who I knew would be helped most by knowing that this is precisely what back then was called strong homotopy suchandsuch . (That’s because that person invented that term ;-)

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeOct 6th 2010

    You have to keep everybody happy :)

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
    • CommentTimeOct 7th 2010

    I fixed some typos in the diagrams (please check I have not mucked them up, :-)). The enumeration seems to be fault, and I always find that hard to fix so I leave it to someone else!

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeOct 7th 2010

    Thanks. I see that you fixed the orientation of two arrows. Thanks! Not sure what you mean by the faulty enumeration, though.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
    • CommentTimeOct 7th 2010

    In ∞-Pseudo-functors / homotopy presheaves, the numbering goes 1,1,2,3. :)

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeOct 7th 2010

    the numbering goes 1,1,2,3.

    Ah, that’s automatic numbering! :-)

    Instiki got mixed up due to a missing space in one line. I inserted the space, now Instiki counts correctly.

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
    • CommentTimeOct 7th 2010

    That was what I remembered had happened to me several times, but I could not remember the solution so thought I would point it out.

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeOct 7th 2010
    • (edited Oct 7th 2010)

    The solution is this:

    when you code a bullet list

     * first item
     * second item
    

    or a numbered list

      1. first item
      1. second item
    

    Then you need to make sure that the indenting is strictly adhered to: as soon as a line end by a “carriage return” (instead of wrapping around itself) and the new line does not start at the former indention, the software will coclude that the list has ended. That means it will itself change the indention of the output back to usual and will number the following numbered list item with 1.

    It is particularly easy to fall in this trap if you start writing a bullet list and half-way through change your mind and make it a numbered list. Because the bullet and one space make an indention of 2. But the digit “1” and the dot after it and a space ofter that make for 3.

    So it often happens to me – and did happen in the case you caught here – that my indention gets mixed up because I change my mind about whether doing bullet lists or enumerated lists.

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeOct 7th 2010

    I guess one way to avoid that would be to get in the habit of putting two spaces after the bullets when making a bullet list. Then if you change it to a numbered list the spacing on subsequent paragraphs wouldn’t need to be adjusted.