Not signed in (Sign In)

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 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

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.
    • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
    • CommentTimeMar 17th 2012

    In something I am writing I needed the notion of a (n+1)-tuple and thought ’how can that be done elegantly?’ I then realised that there is not actually a definition in the lab. As this is probably most useful in the logical, type theoretic and constructive settings I will write just a stub and leave the experts in those areas to add in suitable commentary and details. I needed the idea that I call the support of a tuple, that is its set of component elements. Does anyone know of a better term for that?

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeMar 17th 2012

    Gee, I’m not sure what you want! An (n+1)(n+1)-tuple is a section of a map X[n+1]X \to [n+1]? Or, if all the components of the tuple are understood as belonging to the same set YY, a section of the projection π:Y×[n+1][n+1]\pi: Y \times [n+1] \to [n+1], which can in turn be identified with a map [n+1]Y[n+1] \to Y.

    The support of an (n+1)(n+1)-tuple f:[n+1]Yf: [n+1] \to Y is the image i(f)Yi(f) \hookrightarrow Y?

    Sorry if I’m saying something dumb…

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
    • CommentTimeMar 17th 2012

    I was just wondering if someone had met the idea elsewhere. I looks as if support is quite a good term for it so I will leave it at that. The construct is just needed to construct the functor from the category of simplicial complexers to that of simplicial sets.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMar 17th 2012

    wondering if someone had met the idea elsewhere

    What is “the idea” that you have in mind here? Is it the term “support” as indicated in the entry tuple?

    I am not fully sure what you mean by it.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
    • CommentTimeMar 17th 2012
    • (edited Mar 17th 2012)

    the term I used was support for a n-tuple of entries from a set XX, as being the underlying set of elements or the set of components of the ’tuple’. It is a convenience for handling the functor from Simp.CompSimp.Comp to SSetSSet given by sending a simplicial complex KK to the simplcial set, K simpK^{simp} with σ=v 0,,v n\sigma = \langle v_0,\ldots, v_n\rangle being an nn-simplex of K simpK^{simp} if the ’support’ of σ\sigma, thus the actual vertices used, forms a simplex of KK. Thus if KK is the simplicial complex 1-simplex, then K simpK^{simp} has a 2-simplex that looks like 1,0,1\langle 1,0,1\rangle, which is not degenerate. It is a simplex because its support is the set {0,1}\{0,1\} which is a simplex of KK.

    I can’t help feeling that this notion must have a name (other than the overused ’underlying set’).

    This occurs in the paper by Abels and Holz that I mentioned in another thread, but their description is not 100% to my liking, so …. . (This leads on to orbihedra and triangulable orbifolds.)

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeMar 18th 2012

    Since I usually think of an nn-tuple as a function from [n]{0,,n1}[n] \coloneqq \{0, \ldots, n - 1\}, I often call the support the range.

    I expanded the discussion of formalisation of tuples, which is not always an obvious generalisation of the fomalisation of ordered pairs. (Try to generalise (a,b){{a},{a,b}}(a, b) \coloneqq \{\{a\}, \{a, b\}\} to triples, for example.) Actually, I expanded all of it.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
    • CommentTimeMar 18th 2012

    Great. I was hoping someone in the know would do that. Thanks.