Not signed in (Sign In)

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

  • Sign in using OpenID

Site Tag Cloud

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry beauty bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-theory 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 galois-theory 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 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 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 string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory type type-theory universal variational-calculus

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

Welcome to nForum
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).

nLab > Latest Changes: metric space

Bottom of Page

1 to 10 of 10

  1.  
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeSep 6th 2011

    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 †\dagger-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 †\dagger-categories.

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorporton
    • CommentTimeNov 23rd 2019

    Added new research result that metric spaces are elements of a certain semigroup (or precategory) and that contractions are a special case of generalized continuous function.

    diff, v49, current

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeNov 23rd 2019

    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).

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeNov 23rd 2019

    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.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeDec 5th 2019

    I added a remark about monoidal topology and bicategories of matrices to the section on Lawvere metric spaces, with a reference, and deleted the incomprehensible section.

    diff, v50, current

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeDec 6th 2019

    Thanks, Mike.

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJul 24th 2020

    Skeletality of a Lawvere metric space is equivalent to the usual metric separation axiom only in the presence of symmetry.

    diff, v52, current

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorDean
    • CommentTimeApr 3rd 2021
    I notice that the symmetry axiom makes a metric a groupoid enriched over $[0, \infty]$. That is, adding symmetry to a Lawvere metric turns "category enriched over $[0, \infty]$" into "groupoid enriched over $[0, \infty]$".

  10. adding another definition due to Fred Richman

    Anonymous

    diff, v60, current

1 to 10 of 10

  1.  
Add your comments
  • Please log in or leave your comment as a "guest post". If commenting as a "guest", please include your name in the message as a courtesy. Note: only certain categories allow guest posts.

    • To produce a hyperlink to an nLab entry, simply put double square brackets around its name, e.g. [[category]]. To use (La)TeX mathematics in your post, make sure Markdown+Itex is selected below and put your mathematics between dollar signs as usual. Only a subset of the usual TeX math commands are accepted: see here for a list.

  • (Help)
 
Back to Discussions Top of Page