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 created cone morphism and immediately realized I needed help.
I thought it was cool when I finally understood it after staring at it a few times at Understanding Constructions in Set. However, my understanding is in terms of objects and components of cones, but there is probably some slick way to define it all in one fell swoop.
I managed to straighten out some of the initial mess, but would still be interested in a "component free" definition as a supplement to what is there (if possible).
I added a bit about "pulling back" cones, which probably needs blessing so that I can remove the "tentative" warning.
Some attempted answers for Eric.
Thanks Finn. I think I understand what you were trying to tell me now and added a statement "whose component is " to the definition (although it was probably obvious). Thanks again!
No problem, Eric. I edited the page a bit to try to clarify the point that you've just grokked.
Beautiful!
By the way, where you say , should that be ? Just checking...
Yes, typo -- well spotted. Fixed.
Is it worth having a separate page for this, rather than moving the content to cone?
Right, letâ€™s move the little bit of content that is here and clear this page.
1 to 10 of 10