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.
   • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
   • CommentTimeFeb 14th 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: Tim_Porter
   Format: MarkdownItex[[arsmath|walt]] has replied to an old question of Mike at [[semi-abelian category]].

   walt has replied to an old question of Mike at semi-abelian category.

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
   • CommentTimeOct 16th 2014
   • PermaLink
   Author: David_Corfield
   Format: MarkdownItexRemoved this discussion, since I removed the Bourn- prefix, having added to [[protomodular category]]: +-- {: .query} [[Mike Shulman|Mike]]: I was about to create the link to Bourn-protomodular category, but then I wondered whether we should just say "protomodular"---is there a reason to disambiguate it with the prefix "Bourn-"? We (sometimes) say "Barr-exact" to avoid confusion with [[Quillen exact category|Quillen-exact]]; is there any ambiguity for "protomodular?" [[Zoran Skoda]]: I think not, I saw just one notion of protomodular so far (unlike word semi-abelian which has been used for some other things, mainly before the now accepted dominant notion); besides the notion is mainly used by one and the same community (unlike word exact category which lives with different meanings in completely different societies of mathematicians). I think no need to call it Bourn-protomodular; of course the entry should have pointers to the original references and short mention of the optional modifier, I think. =-- Perhaps the other discussions could be dealt with there.

   Removed this discussion, since I removed the Bourn- prefix, having added to protomodular category:

   +– {: .query} Mike: I was about to create the link to Bourn-protomodular category, but then I wondered whether we should just say “protomodular”—is there a reason to disambiguate it with the prefix “Bourn-“? We (sometimes) say “Barr-exact” to avoid confusion with Quillen-exact; is there any ambiguity for “protomodular?”

   Zoran Skoda: I think not, I saw just one notion of protomodular so far (unlike word semi-abelian which has been used for some other things, mainly before the now accepted dominant notion); besides the notion is mainly used by one and the same community (unlike word exact category which lives with different meanings in completely different societies of mathematicians). I think no need to call it Bourn-protomodular; of course the entry should have pointers to the original references and short mention of the optional modifier, I think. =–

   Perhaps the other discussions could be dealt with there.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
   • CommentTimeOct 16th 2014
   • PermaLink
   Author: David_Corfield
   Format: MarkdownItexAlso, a knowledgeable person might relate this page to [[homological category]].

   Also, a knowledgeable person might relate this page to homological category.