Not signed in (Sign In)

Start a new discussion

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-categories 2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry bundles calculus categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-theory cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics comma complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry differential-topology digraphs duality education elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration finite foundations functional-analysis functor galois-theory gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck 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 lie-theory limit limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal-logic model model-category-theory monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology multicategories nonassociative noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pasting philosophy physics planar 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 string string-theory subobject superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory 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 8th 2010

    promted by demand from my Basic-Course-On-Category-Theory-Students I expanded the entry 2-category:

    • mentioned more relations to other concepts in the Idea-section;

    • added an Examples-section with a bunch of (classes of) examples;

    • added a list of references. Please add more if you can think of more!

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeOct 8th 2010

    What is the purpose of the bullet list containing category, 2-category, etc. at the top of the article? It looks weird to me there – shouldn’t a page called “2-category” start with the contents of itself? Those seem more like they would go in a “related pages” section at the bottom of the page.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeOct 8th 2010

    Does it look weird?

    Darn, I thought it was a good idea. Will have to remove these, then. I keep having this urge of putting pages into context. For cases where we have sequences of pages that all vary on the same theme, I started to collect their titles in short lists at the top of the page, kind of as a sort of little menu to choose from.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeOct 9th 2010

    I thought that putting pages in context was one of the purposes of the floating contents links on the side.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
    • CommentTimeOct 9th 2010

    @Urs. Perhaps that list could go elsewhere. I did think that it was not helpful where it is.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorFinnLawler
    • CommentTimeOct 9th 2010

    Those lists do look a bit strange at the very beginning of the page. They are a good idea, though, I think, and they complement the subject-contents links by grouping pages more by conceptual similarity than by usage.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeOct 10th 2010

    Okay, will start moving these lists elsewhere!

    Finn wrote:

    They are a good idea, though, I think, and they complement the subject-contents links by grouping pages more by conceptual similarity than by usage.

    That had been my feeling, that the floating TOC serves to set the scene, but does not convey the immediate idea “this entry is only one variant of a single concept, the other variants of which are…”. I felt we have a bunch of entries that in principle could be on a single page.

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeOct 11th 2010
    • (edited Oct 11th 2010)

    Darn, I thought it was a good idea. Will have to remove these, then. I keep having this urge of putting pages into context.

    I also like to have the main content straight away without scrolling, while side links on the side (like floating contents) or at the bottom of the page along with references (related entries). Many times I was writing Literature and links or References and other entries or alike section at the bottom. So I think all that idea of adding more links ios always good but not at the beginning of the entry.

    "this entry is only one variant of a single concept, the other variants of which are..."

    There are so many variant of this statement of different flavour, like related concepts, synonyms, closely related concepts, other formalisms for the same idea etc. each of these is a different flavour. If one is putting just a list with some default meaning of the list one does not know which variant of list of variants one is giving. So it is difficult to colaborate on creating such lists. Sometimes a single top page title like algebraic theories above PRO may be worthy, but one can have several groups of titles with common intersection, and each group is defined by a different principle. So I do not see a way for one size to fit all. So maybe it would be better to have explicit explanation of a compact linear list at the bottom with references.

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeOct 14th 2010

    I don’t like these either and keep meaning to ask about them. Or rather, I like them very much! Just not where they are.

    Since they’re so short, maybe you can put them on the side above the other lists of contents, but without the funky code to make it disappear?

Add your comments
  • Please log in or leave your comment as a "guest post". If commenting as a "guest", please include your name in the message as a courtesy. Note: only certain categories allow guest posts.
  • To produce a hyperlink to an nLab entry, simply put double square brackets around its name, e.g. [[category]]. To use (La)TeX mathematics in your post, make sure Markdown+Itex is selected below and put your mathematics between dollar signs as usual. Only a subset of the usual TeX math commands are accepted: see here for a list.

  • (Help)