Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

• Username
• Password
• Remember me

• Sign in using OpenID
• Remember me

• Forgot your password?
• Apply for membership

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 complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology definitions deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration 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 nforum 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

1. • CommentRowNumber1.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeApr 26th 2011
   • (edited Apr 26th 2011)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexI 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 * [[syntactic category]] * [[syntactic site]] * [[categorical semantics]] I have created * [[cartesian category]] 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.)

   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

   • syntactic category

   • syntactic site

   • categorical semantics

   I have created

   • cartesian category

   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.)

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeApr 26th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItex* [[regular functor]] * [[regular coverage]]

   • regular functor

   • regular coverage

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeApr 26th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItex* [[axiom]] (just for completeness)

   • axiom

   (just for completeness)

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeApr 26th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexadded a stubby definition of [[sequent]] to the entry that this term redirects to, which is [[sequent calculus]]

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

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeApr 27th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexThanks, 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".

   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”.

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeApr 27th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItex> 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.

   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.

7. • CommentRowNumber7.
   • CommentAuthorzskoda
   • CommentTimeApr 28th 2011
   • (edited Apr 28th 2011)
   • PermaLink
   Author: zskoda
   Format: MarkdownItexYes, *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.

   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.