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.
   • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
   • CommentTimeNov 10th 2009
   • PermaLink
   Author: TobyBartels
   Format: MarkdownI moved some discussion from [[bicategory]] to [[weak enrichment]], a new page. (Possibly it was already moved somewhere else, since Mike had already deleted it, but I couldn't find it.)

   I moved some discussion from bicategory to weak enrichment, a new page. (Possibly it was already moved somewhere else, since Mike had already deleted it, but I couldn't find it.)

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeNov 10th 2009
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownMy feeling is that discussions on the nlab don't have to be preserved until time immemorial. Once they've been inactive for a while, and the information contained in them is incorporated into the main text, I think the discussion can and should be removed. (Of course, it still exists in history.) I felt that that discussion didn't contain anything that wasn't in main text somewhere else, but possibly I was wrong.

   My feeling is that discussions on the nlab don't have to be preserved until time immemorial. Once they've been inactive for a while, and the information contained in them is incorporated into the main text, I think the discussion can and should be removed. (Of course, it still exists in history.) I felt that that discussion didn't contain anything that wasn't in main text somewhere else, but possibly I was wrong.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
   • CommentTimeNov 11th 2009
   • PermaLink
   Author: TobyBartels
   Format: MarkdownI agree with you in principle, but I didn't think that the page included the general material that John wrote about. Of course, that didn't really belong on that page either, which is why I made a new page for it. Someday somebody will write a real page on that topic, incorporating the material in the discussion, and then it will all be good.

   I agree with you in principle, but I didn't think that the page included the general material that John wrote about. Of course, that didn't really belong on that page either, which is why I made a new page for it. Someday somebody will write a real page on that topic, incorporating the material in the discussion, and then it will all be good.

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
   • CommentTimeNov 11th 2009
   • PermaLink
   Author: TobyBartels
   Format: MarkdownLooking harder now, I see that there's also [[homotopical enrichment]]. Nothing but discussion there either! Now the two pages link to each other.

   Looking harder now, I see that there's also homotopical enrichment. Nothing but discussion there either! Now the two pages link to each other.

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeNov 11th 2009
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownWe just wait for that book by Barwick, I suppose. ;-) My impression is that in some corners the idea is to first develop oo-operad theory further and then to use that to define enriched oo-categories.

   We just wait for that book by Barwick, I suppose. ;-)

   My impression is that in some corners the idea is to first develop oo-operad theory further and then to use that to define enriched oo-categories.

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeFeb 10th 2013
   • (edited Feb 10th 2013)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexI have added to _[[weak enrichment]]_ a pointer to _[[enriched (infinity,1)-category]]_ and to def. 4.2.1.12 in _[[Higher Algebra]]_. That pointer to Barwick's work in the discussion on this page is probably referring to his thesis on $n$-fold Segal spaces?! If so, this would not be enrichment in higher category theory but internalization, and we should fix it.

   I have added to weak enrichment a pointer to enriched (infinity,1)-category and to def. 4.2.1.12 in Higher Algebra.

   That pointer to Barwick’s work in the discussion on this page is probably referring to his thesis on $n$-fold Segal spaces?! If so, this would not be enrichment in higher category theory but internalization, and we should fix it.

7. • CommentRowNumber7.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeFeb 12th 2013
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexhm, what I added there at [[weak enrichment]] should probably better be called _weak [[tensoring]]_. ?!

   hm, what I added there at weak enrichment should probably better be called weak tensoring. ?!