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 book bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry differential-topology digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration finite foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry goodwillie-calculus 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 homology 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 monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology newpage nforum nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory object 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 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).
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeFeb 23rd 2012

    added to generalized Reedy category a bunch of definitions and propositions from Cisinski’s article, concerning the notion of normal morphisms of presheaves over a generalized Reedy category.

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeFeb 23rd 2012

    Thanks! I just had a look at this page for the first time since Cisinski’s notion was added. I was a bit confused about which statements and examples were about which definition, so I tried to clarify; but please correct if I got it wrong.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeFeb 23rd 2012

    Hi Mike,

    yes, sorry, I had added this only today and then was interrupted before I had really cleaned up the expanded entry. I will expand further on this in more detail in the next days.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorJonasFrey
    • CommentTimeSep 24th 2019

    I think there’s a little problem on this page: Cisinski’s “catégories squelettiques” are introduced as a generalization of Reedy categories, and are actually referred to as “Cisinski generalized Reedy categories”. However, I don’t think that they actually generalize Reedy categories: in a Cisinski category, all negative maps are split epis, but for Reedy categories arising from inverse categories this property only holds in trivial cases (when the inverse category is discrete).

    To fix this, I think we have to start by changing terminology. What should we say instead of “Cisinski generalized Reedy category”? Maybe “Cisinski category”? Or “skeletic category”?

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorJonasFrey
    • CommentTimeSep 24th 2019

    Or maybe “Cisinski-skeletal category” in analogy to “Barr-exact”.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorRichard Williamson
    • CommentTimeSep 25th 2019
    • (edited Sep 25th 2019)

    I think ’skeletal category’ is good, can always be qualified with ’in the sense of Cisinki’ if necessary.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeSep 26th 2019

    I like Cisinski-skeletal.

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeSep 26th 2019

    skeletal category has a standard meaning, so any other usage of it should be qualified somehow. But since Cisinski’s categories are so much like Reedy categories, I think it would be good to name them accordingly, rather than perpetuating unnecessary confusion. Maybe “Cisinski-Reedy category”?

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)