# 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

## Site Tag Cloud

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

• CommentRowNumber1.
• CommentAuthorUrs
• CommentTimeApr 26th 2011
• (edited Apr 26th 2011)

I am trying to begin to coherently add some of the topics of part D of the Elephant into the Lab.

Currently I am creating lots of stub entries, splitting them off from existing entries if necessary, cross-link them appropriately, and then eventually add content to them.

so far I have for instance created new (mostly stub) entries for things like

I have created

and made it a disambiguation page.

(or rather I will have in a few minutes. All my save-windows are currently stalled. Will have to restart the server.)

• CommentRowNumber2.
• CommentAuthorUrs
• CommentTimeApr 26th 2011
• CommentRowNumber3.
• CommentAuthorUrs
• CommentTimeApr 26th 2011

(just for completeness)

• CommentRowNumber4.
• CommentAuthorUrs
• CommentTimeApr 26th 2011

added a stubby definition of sequent to the entry that this term redirects to, which is sequent calculus

• CommentRowNumber5.
• CommentAuthorMike Shulman
• CommentTimeApr 27th 2011

Thanks, it’ll be good to have more of this nLabified! I would suggest that maybe instead of following the Elephant’s terminology too closely, we try to stick with the words that we’ve been using on the rest of the nLab, like finitely complete category (which requires no disambiguation) instead of “cartesian”.

• CommentRowNumber6.
• CommentAuthorUrs
• CommentTimeApr 27th 2011

I would suggest that maybe instead of following the Elephant’s terminology too closely, we try to stick with the words that we’ve been using on the rest of the nLab, like finitely complete category (which requires no disambiguation) instead of “cartesian”.

Yes, I was aware of this. But while working on this I began to like an favor “cartesian category”. Sorry. :-) But at various places I added also some phrase or something mentioning finite limits explicitly.

• CommentRowNumber7.
• CommentAuthorzskoda
• CommentTimeApr 28th 2011
• (edited Apr 28th 2011)

Yes, Cartesian category is an expression not that friendly to working mathematicians (I mean those not focused on the tradition of category theory) and it often confused me few years ago when my categorical background was even much weaker than now. Sometimes when I recommend some $n$Lab pages to the students some of them tell me they would rather look in the book as the $n$Lab is often overwhelming with terminology. Of course, any contributor may use any choice of standard terminology which make him happy to contribute…for example I stick to the original expression fibered category preferred by geometers and not Grothendieck fibration, which seem to be preferred from $n$Lab community.