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’ve removed this query box from metric space and incorporated its information into the text:
Mike: Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the symmetry axiom gives us enriched †-categories?
Toby: Yeah, that could work. I was thinking of arguing that it makes sense to enrich groupoids in any monoidal poset, cartesian or otherwise, since we can write down the operations and all equations are trivial in a poset. But maybe it makes more sense to call those enriched †-categories.
As usual, I dislike the terminology, and the revision is very close to useless as it doesn’t explain the purported result; it just says to look at Porton’s book if you want to find out (shameless self-promotion I think is the usual phrase).
The terminology and notation are ugly and idiosyncratic (and the word “precategory” isn’t even defined), but if I understand correctly this looks like just a reinvention of the fact that metric spaces (like any enriched category) are monads (hence also particular morphisms) in a bicategory of profunctors. I think it would be reasonable to mention that fact, probably in the section on Lawvere metric spaces, though using standard terminology and notation of course. There are plenty of extant citations for generalizations of this point of view to other kinds of topological structures, including an entire book.
Thanks, Mike.
Added subsection on category of metric spaces/short map.
have hyperlinked the statement of the Urysohn metrization theorem here to its entry (Urysohn metrization theorem) and touched formatting and wording of the following (counter-)examples.
I saw this in the current version (compare #9):
Imposing the symmetry axiom then gives us enriched †-categories. Note that when enriching over a cartesian monoidal poset, there is no difference between a †-category and a groupoid, so ultrametric spaces can also be regarded as enriched groupoids, which is perhaps a more familiar concept.
(The requisite axioms for an enriched groupoid do not make sense when the enriching category is not cartesian, but one might argue that since in a poset “they would commute automatically anyway”, it makes sense to call any poset-enriched †-category also an “enriched groupoid”. However, perhaps it makes more sense just to speak about enriched †-categories.)
I like the first sentence, because I know of other situations where one is enriching in a †-monoid and the condition hom(x,y)†=hom(y,x) turns out to be a really sensible one.
But past the first sentence and before the last, I’m having trouble making sense of it (what “would commute automatically anyway”?), and I would like to have more eyeballs on this to help decide how much sense it makes or if we want to keep it in its current state. It’s not exactly written with a lot of confidence, after all. :-)
What about
Imposing the symmetry axiom then gives us enriched †-categories. Note that when enriching over a cartesian monoidal poset, there is no difference between a †-category and a groupoid, so ultrametric spaces can also be regarded as enriched groupoids. But the requisite axioms for an enriched groupoid do not make sense when the enriching category is not cartesian, so an ordinary metric space cannot be regarded as an enriched groupoid.
That formulation would make much more sense to me.
1 to 16 of 16