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 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 sheaves 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.
   • CommentAuthorjamievicary
   • CommentTimeJun 12th 2011
   • (edited Jun 12th 2011)
   • PermaLink
   Author: jamievicary
   Format: MarkdownItexWhat's the correct higher-categorical jargon for expressing the categorification of the statement "unique up to unique isomorphism"? Surely there's a better way than "unique up to equivalence which is unique up to unique isomorphism". I suppose there's a homotopical answer to this -- "unique up to contractible equivalence" or something.

   What’s the correct higher-categorical jargon for expressing the categorification of the statement “unique up to unique isomorphism”? Surely there’s a better way than “unique up to equivalence which is unique up to unique isomorphism”. I suppose there’s a homotopical answer to this – “unique up to contractible equivalence” or something.

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorFinnLawler
   • CommentTimeJun 12th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: FinnLawler
   Format: MarkdownItexI don't know if it's correct in any sense, but I'd just say 'essentially unique' and rely on the context to determine exactly what that meant. Would it make sense to say, if you wanted to be precise, that a thing is _essentially $n$-unique_ (or something like that) if any other such thing is connected to it by an equivalence which is itself essentially $(n-1)$-unique (where $0$-unique means strictly unique, of course)?

   I don’t know if it’s correct in any sense, but I’d just say ’essentially unique’ and rely on the context to determine exactly what that meant.

   Would it make sense to say, if you wanted to be precise, that a thing is essentially $n$-unique (or something like that) if any other such thing is connected to it by an equivalence which is itself essentially $(n-1)$-unique (where $0$-unique means strictly unique, of course)?

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeJun 12th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexI'd say "essentially unique" or "unique up to a contractible space of choices" or (if the homotopical/higher context were understood) simply "unique".

   I’d say “essentially unique” or “unique up to a contractible space of choices” or (if the homotopical/higher context were understood) simply “unique”.

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorjamievicary
   • CommentTimeJun 13th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: jamievicary
   Format: MarkdownItexThanks guys. I think the most sensible route is to define "essentially unique", as it's a short enough phrase, and use that. I like the idea of $n$-uniqueness!

   Thanks guys. I think the most sensible route is to define “essentially unique”, as it’s a short enough phrase, and use that. I like the idea of $n$-uniqueness!

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorzskoda
   • CommentTimeJun 14th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: zskoda
   Format: MarkdownItexThe words "essentially unique" would at least to me mean that it is unique up to an isomorphism, and not up to unique isomorphism (geometers in 1-categorical case distinguish unique up to iso and "uniquely unique" what is what you want: the Grothendieck school likes that repetition of the word unique as a reminder).

   The words “essentially unique” would at least to me mean that it is unique up to an isomorphism, and not up to unique isomorphism (geometers in 1-categorical case distinguish unique up to iso and “uniquely unique” what is what you want: the Grothendieck school likes that repetition of the word unique as a reminder).