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 comma 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 finite 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 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.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeJan 16th 2011
    • (edited Jan 16th 2011)

    A disturbing trend is putting adjectives as redirects on pages whose titles are noun phrases including those adjectives. This catches some badly formed links, but it also catches badly formed links that were never supposed to go there in the first place! I’m thinking of making a bunch of disambiguation pages whose page titles are adjectives just to put a stop to this.

    So far, however, I’ve only created connective; and nothing links to it now, because I made all of the erstwhile links there link to noun phrases instead.

    An alternative is to put the link to the most general form with that adjective; for example, I moved the redirect connected from locally n-connected (n,1)-topos (which isn’t actually about merely connected things except as a special case) to connected object (which does seem to be the most general article on connected things … so far).

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJan 16th 2011

    A disturbing trend

    Sorry if its me who is responsible for (parts of?) this trend. I came to like typing, say, nn-truncated as a convenient shorthand for the full title of the page that this links to. I am feeling that when typing I already have a vast amount of overhead with writing out the full links to (,1)(\infty,1)-categorical entries.

    to connected object (which does seem to be the most general article on connected things … so far).

    Well n-connected object of an (infinity,1)-topos is also pretty general. However it assumes a little bit more than just an extensive category.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeJan 16th 2011
    • (edited Jan 16th 2011)

    I don’t think that nn-connected things are more general than connected things; I’ve left n-connected as a redirect to n-connected object of an (infinity,1)-topos, but not connected. You can reduce overhead by writing [[n-connected]], although that doesn’t format the “n” correctly. (I might always come by later and change it to $n$-[[n-connected object|connected]] for you.)

    I guess that I would encourage you to think whether the adjective has other meanings, which it may well have even when the full noun phrase does not. (That’s one thing that’s good about noun phrases as page titles.)

    Oh, and you’re not the only one who links to adjectives; you may be the only one putting them in as redirects, but I don’t think so.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeJan 16th 2011
    • (edited Jan 16th 2011)

    Another reason not to link to adjectives is if you really want to link to something more specific. What topologist, when writing [[connected]], really wants to go to connected object rather than to connected topological space? Better to play it safe and write [[connected space|connected]] from the beginning; you never know where that adjective is going to end up!

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJan 16th 2011

    Agreed.

    While we are at it: I find slightly troublesome the habit exhibited here and there on the nnLab of writing “space” for “topological space”. There are so many other kinds of “space”s discussed on the nnLab, that it seems wrong to assume that the default case is “topological space”. Accordingly, in the past I had renamed some entries that were titled “xyz space” to “xyz toplogical space”.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeJan 18th 2011

    I would rather go the other way; keep the titles “xyz space”, but add to them details about about other kinds of spaces. I usually at least say something about locales if I can, when I see these.

    If they only discuss topological spaces at first, that’s OK, but that would not be their ultimate purpose.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
    • CommentTimeJan 18th 2011
    On another thread, there has been mention of the horror `space = simplicial set' and hence 'simplicial space = bisimplicial set'.

    I'm afraid that for me space without any adjective will always mean topological space as they are the only ones i ever use. If in the presence of more than one type of space adjectives are called for of course.
    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeJan 18th 2011

    I agree with you, Tim.

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJan 18th 2011

    On another thread, there has been mention of the horror ‘space = simplicial set’ and hence ’simplicial space = bisimplicial set’.

    If the context is clear, that’s fine, but on the nnLab where the context is wide, that is a bad habit in my opinion.

    For instance: we are having this long discussion of good and proper simplicial topological spaces at nice simplicial topological space and geometric realization of simplicial topological spaces. Notice that if you identify “space” with “simplicial set” then these notions become empty. Then every simplicial topologial space is proper! (As discussed there.)

    The trouble is really that you are violating a basic fact about category theory by conflating terminology like this: namely that it is not the objects that matter, but the category that they are objects of. Due to this there is a big difference between “topological space” as an object in the 1-category whose morphisms are continuous maps, and “topological space” in the \infty-category/homotopy category of that, which is what you invoke by identifying it implicitly with a simplicial set.

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
    • CommentTimeJan 18th 2011
    My point was that I am very much against calling a simplicial set a space. I would also dislike implying that `space = CW-complex'. On the other hand mention of 'topological' before space may not be strictly necessary if in a page the meaning is clear, e.g. by using the adjective early on.
    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJan 18th 2011

    Okay, I guess we all agree then.

    • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeJan 18th 2011

    I am for accepting a simplicial set as a kind of space, and I’m against interpreting “space” in general to mean topological space. However, I’m certainly also against interpreting “space” in general to mean simplicial set. (Other kinds of spaces that I know: \infty-groupoids, Kan complexes, locales, objects in ASD, convergence spaces; topological spaces are, almost or exactly, special cases of all of these.) Both interpretations are OK in context, and page names with “space” are OK too, but those pages should cover the most general interpretation (even if they begin with topological spaces as the motivating case, and possibly the only case at first).

    I’m not sure if this disagrees with the second paragraph of Tim #7, but otherwise I don’t think that it disagrees with anybody now.

    • CommentRowNumber13.
    • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
    • CommentTimeJan 19th 2011

    It don’t disagree with me. My #7 is a statement of fact. When typing I often forget to put in precision of what type of space is being considered as my default tends to be a ’topological’ one. For me, I would not call an \infty-groupoid a space. Rather it is a model of a space or homotopy type. I have got lost when articles refer to a homotopy type as a space, since they seem to me to be different concepts. Locales are almost spaces for me, but not quite… .

    I would not like to be precise about what I do and do not mean by space. I have written papers with that as one of their themes. Perhaps, and that was a theme of the papers, we should almost have some idea of a ’presentation’ of a space, e.g., if someone has a possible (topological) space of solutions of some problem/equation whatever, and has a finite set of observations of solutions then they are giving a partial specification of the space but it may be the only thing we have to go on when working out what the characteristics of the space are. That leads to persistent homology, topological data analysis etc. and seems to be great fun. Perhaps a space is the abstraction we try to grab and all the things you mention are our attempts at encoding the ’spatial’ information about it. In any case, my point in #7 was to support the use of ’(adjective) space’ for at least the first use of a specific type of ’space’ in an entry, and to admit to bad practice.

    • CommentRowNumber14.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeJan 19th 2011

    OK, I agree with you that all of these things can be thought of as ways to present the underlying topological idea of what a space is. And the standard notion of ‘topological space’ is no exception; while it’s caught on as a formal standard in general topology (hence its name), it’s just one more way to present the underlying idea of a space.

    • CommentRowNumber15.
    • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
    • CommentTimeJan 20th 2011

    Briefly taking up that theme, I think that a useful direction for someone’s research (possibly mine :-)) is to find translations between different notions of presentation of space. I like finite topological spaces, for instance, because they are neatly represented but although theoretically possible, the process of translating from a finite specification of a finite space to an intuition based on homotopy groups, \infty-groupoids, etc. tends to be tedious and to go via other models. Then to go from a (finite) space to a (finite) locale then to a (finite) quantale to what…. . and that is just one of the directions possible. Fun!