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 internal-categories k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure 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 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
   • CommentTimeNov 2nd 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexI have created an entry [[notions of type]] to be included under "Related notions" in the relevant entries. (I have managed to refrain from titling it "types of types".) Which notions of types are still missing in the table?

   I have created an entry notions of type to be included under “Related notions” in the relevant entries.

   (I have managed to refrain from titling it “types of types”.)

   Which notions of types are still missing in the table?

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorUlrik
   • CommentTimeNov 3rd 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: Ulrik
   Format: MarkdownItexPerhaps [types in model theory](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_(model_theory))?

   Perhaps types in model theory?

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeNov 3rd 2011
   • (edited Nov 3rd 2011)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItex> Perhaps [types in model theory](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_(model_theory))? Thanks. I will have to pass this question on to someone more expert than me. My impression was that the plain $n$Lab entry _[[type]]_ -- stubby as it still is -- is meant to subsume in particular this notion of type in model theory. If that is right, I would rather expand the entry [[type]] (which deserves to be expanded anyway) with a section along the line of that [Wikipedia entry](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_%28model_theory%29), than create a separate entry "type (in model theory)". But maybe I am mixed up about this. What do you (you all) think?

   Perhaps types in model theory?

   Thanks. I will have to pass this question on to someone more expert than me.

   My impression was that the plain $n$Lab entry type – stubby as it still is – is meant to subsume in particular this notion of type in model theory. If that is right, I would rather expand the entry type (which deserves to be expanded anyway) with a section along the line of that Wikipedia entry, than create a separate entry “type (in model theory)”.

   But maybe I am mixed up about this. What do you (you all) think?

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeNov 3rd 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexNo, I think [[type]] is about types in *type theory*, which are not the same as types in model theory. However, given the current content of [[notions of type]], it seems that the intent is to talk about various notions of type *in type theory*.

   No, I think type is about types in type theory, which are not the same as types in model theory.

   However, given the current content of notions of type, it seems that the intent is to talk about various notions of type in type theory.

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
   • CommentTimeNov 4th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: TobyBartels
   Format: MarkdownItexSo if and when anybody wants to write about types in model theory, then they should a disambiguating note to [[type]] (as well as links from articles on model theory) and write it at [[model-theoretic type]] or whatever.

   So if and when anybody wants to write about types in model theory, then they should a disambiguating note to type (as well as links from articles on model theory) and write it at model-theoretic type or whatever.