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.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeMar 23rd 2012
   • (edited Mar 23rd 2012)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexFor some $n$Lab work that I will do in the next days, I want to be able, for convenience, to refer the reader to an entry which exhibits the iterated lifting-property-calculus that is nicely discussed in the appendix of the article by Joyal-Tierney on complete Segal spaces: For the moment I titled that entry _[[Joyal-Tierney calculus]]_. Not sure, though, if that is a good name. Suggestions would be welcome.

   For some $n$Lab work that I will do in the next days, I want to be able, for convenience, to refer the reader to an entry which exhibits the iterated lifting-property-calculus that is nicely discussed in the appendix of the article by Joyal-Tierney on complete Segal spaces:

   For the moment I titled that entry Joyal-Tierney calculus. Not sure, though, if that is a good name. Suggestions would be welcome.

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeMar 22nd 2016
   • (edited Mar 22nd 2016)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexLooking at _[[Joyal-Tierney calculus]]_ in the section on _[pushout tensoring](https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Joyal-Tierney+calculus#pushouttensoring)_ reminds me that the rendering of over-bars is often less than optimal. Generally the bars tend to come out too small. Using overline instead helps with that, but here is yet another problem: in inline maths (as opposed to displayed maths) both \bar and \overline over an \otimes are rendered _next_ to the \otimes, as opposed to above it. On that particular page we should just decide on a different decoration altogether. But generally the rendering behaviour here deserves to be fixed.

   Looking at Joyal-Tierney calculus in the section on pushout tensoring reminds me that the rendering of over-bars is often less than optimal. Generally the bars tend to come out too small. Using overline instead helps with that, but here is yet another problem: in inline maths (as opposed to displayed maths) both \bar and \overline over an \otimes are rendered next to the \otimes, as opposed to above it.

   On that particular page we should just decide on a different decoration altogether. But generally the rendering behaviour here deserves to be fixed.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeOct 4th 2021
   • (edited Oct 4th 2021)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexFor readability, I have replaced the symbol "$\pitchfork$" (`\pitchfork`) for "lifting property" by "$&solb;$" (`&solb;`). (Following discussion in another thread [here](https://nforum.ncatlab.org/discussion/13511/separation-axioms-in-terms-of-lifting-properties/?Focus=95634#Comment_95634).) [ edit: this page is in need of some further improvement of its notation: that bar-notation is no good for the present purpose. We should use notation as in [this example](https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/enriched+model+category#MonoidalModelCategoryIsEnrichedModelOverItself). ] <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/diff/Joyal-Tierney+calculus/10">diff</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/Joyal-Tierney+calculus/10">v10</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Joyal-Tierney+calculus">current</a>

   For readability, I have replaced the symbol “$\pitchfork$” (\pitchfork) for “lifting property” by “$⧄$” (⧄).

   (Following discussion in another thread here.)

   [ edit: this page is in need of some further improvement of its notation: that bar-notation is no good for the present purpose. We should use notation as in this example. ]

   diff, v10, current