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.
   • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
   • CommentTimeMar 17th 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: Tim_Porter
   Format: MarkdownItexIn 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?

   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?

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
   • CommentTimeMar 17th 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: Todd_Trimble
   Format: MarkdownItexGee, I'm not sure what you want! An $(n+1)$-tuple is a section of a map $X \to [n+1]$? Or, if all the components of the tuple are understood as belonging to the same set $Y$, a section of the projection $\pi: Y \times [n+1] \to [n+1]$, which can in turn be identified with a map $[n+1] \to Y$. The support of an $(n+1)$-tuple $f: [n+1] \to Y$ is the image $i(f) \hookrightarrow Y$? Sorry if I'm saying something dumb...

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

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

   Sorry if I’m saying something dumb…

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
   • CommentTimeMar 17th 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: Tim_Porter
   Format: MarkdownItexI 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.

   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.

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeMar 17th 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItex> 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.

   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.

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
   • CommentTimeMar 17th 2012
   • (edited Mar 17th 2012)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Tim_Porter
   Format: MarkdownItexthe term I used was support for a n-tuple of entries from a set $X$, as being the underlying set of elements or the set of components of the 'tuple'. It is a convenience for handling the functor from $Simp.Comp$ to $SSet$ given by sending a simplicial complex $K$ to the simplcial set, $K^{simp}$ with $\sigma = \langle v_0,\ldots, v_n\rangle$ being an $n$-simplex of $K^{simp}$ if the 'support' of $\sigma$, thus the actual vertices used, forms a simplex of $K$. Thus if $K$ is the simplicial complex 1-simplex, then $K^{simp}$ has a 2-simplex that looks like $\langle 1,0,1\rangle$, which is not degenerate. It is a simplex because its support is the set $\{0,1\}$ which is a simplex of $K$. 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.)

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

   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.)

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
   • CommentTimeMar 18th 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: TobyBartels
   Format: MarkdownItexSince I usually think of an $n$-tuple as a function from $[n] \coloneqq \{0, \ldots, n - 1\}$, 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 $(a, b) \coloneqq \{\{a\}, \{a, b\}\}$ to triples, for example.) Actually, I expanded all of it.

   Since I usually think of an $n$-tuple as a function from $[n] \coloneqq \{0, \ldots, n - 1\}$, 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 $(a, b) \coloneqq \{\{a\}, \{a, b\}\}$ to triples, for example.) Actually, I expanded all of it.

7. • CommentRowNumber7.
   • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
   • CommentTimeMar 18th 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: Tim_Porter
   Format: MarkdownItexGreat. I was hoping someone in the know would do that. Thanks.

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