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.
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.
I have edited the linked table of contents at Elephant, etc.
(or rather I will have in a few minutes. All my save-windows are currently stalled. Will have to restart the server.)
(just for completeness)
added a stubby definition of sequent to the entry that this term redirects to, which is sequent calculus
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”.
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.
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 nLab pages to the students some of them tell me they would rather look in the book as the nLab 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 nLab community.
1 to 7 of 7