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.
In light of people such as Taichi Uemura using assemblies in areas unrelated to realizability, I’ve decided to split off the text on assemblies and its category from realizability topos to its own article.
George Harrison
I wouldn’t say that Uemura’s work is “unrelated” to realizability. But a separate article makes sense I guess.
I would say this note is more distracting than the notation itself. This kind of meta-commentary belongs here rather than in the article, and if you really think the notation is discouraged then just change it to Asm as much of the modern literature does.
This was the same person who added the note to principle of equivalence saying that “evil” was discouraged on the nLab and should be removed from nLab articles.
My personal thoughts on the notes: there is no reason for it to be on three pages. Put it on the disambiguation page Ass and remove it from the actual articles, if we are to have a note on this topic. Same goes for the note Abe added to principle of equivalence; it can go on the disambiguation page evil instead.
We can also have the same exact discussion about the use of “Coq” on the nLab for the proof assistant Rocq: whether or not the use of the old name “Coq” should be discouraged on the nLab, and if so, whether or not there should be an explicit note on the article saying that use of the old name “Coq” should be discouraged.
But for context, there’s been a few discussions on the category theory Zulip about the use of these words, see e.g.
Yes, Madeleine is right, best not to make a big deal out of such matters.
You are all meant to be so nerdy and engulfed in doing math that you don’t even notice such mundanities! :-)
Seriously, though, towards Abe: If/since you are not an established regular contributor, you shouldn’t be in the business of adding declarations to nLab pages as to what the nLab encourages or not. If you feel something needs discussing, raise it here on the nForum.
I raised the issue for discussion here.
Perhaps it is a more general problem that people are going to Zulip instead of here to talk about the nLab, and then coming to the nLab to make an edit based on that discussion, but then it seems to come out of nowhere to people here who weren’t on Zulip.
My own feeling is that we should not use “Ass” for anything, nor even remark on that notation anywhere. Any reference that uses Ass should introduce that notation itself, and anyone reading such a reference and also the nLab will be able to make the connection easily. The notations for many specific categories are not really standard in the literature anyway, e.g. Topos vs Top vs Topoi vs GrTop, or Man vs Mfd vs Diff.
You are all meant to be so nerdy and engulfed in doing math that you don’t even notice such mundanities!
This is the kind of mentality that led Tolkien to follow his linguistic and etymological process faithfully and give a well-known character the alternative name Teleporno, to the delight of teenage meme-creators everywhere. If I followed some standard abbreviation convention blindly and it led me to land on a four-letter obscenity, I wouldn’t be so engulfed in mathematics I didn’t notice. I would change it to avoid distracting from the mathematics. I also wouldn’t point out the natural abbreviation and that I’m avoiding it.
Agreed with #12. The other day one of my kids asked why the hypertext transfer protocol secure is called that instead of the more natural (in English) “secure hypertext transfer protocol”. I don’t actually know why, but I can think of one reason that it might be.
1 to 13 of 13