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 comma 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 finite 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 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

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.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeAug 16th 2012
    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeAug 16th 2012

    Added a link to preserved limit.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeAug 16th 2012

    I added some remarks about flat functors.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorTom Leinster
    • CommentTimeAug 17th 2012

    I definitely write “product-preserving functor”, but can someone help me decide whether I should write “finite-product-preserving functor”, “finite product preserving functor”, or something else? I can never make up my mind. I lean towards f-p-p, but there’s such a thing as too many hyphens in a row.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeAug 17th 2012

    You could try ‘finite-product–preserving functor’. (That’s one hyphen and one en dash.) Or else cartesian monoidal functor (following cartesian monoidal category), which already exists but could use explication and redirects.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeAug 17th 2012

    I’ve written “finite-product-preserving” and “finite-product preserving”, with the same misgivings as Tom. Other than that, circumlocutions like “functor preserving finite products”. Maybe “cartesian” or “cartesian monoidal” on odd occasions.

    I’ve only just now thought of “fpp functor” as perhaps acceptable in a paper where the phrase is invoked often, with an explanatory note at the beginning.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeAug 17th 2012

    Just make sure it is not confused with fppf.

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorTom Leinster
    • CommentTimeAug 18th 2012

    Thanks for the opinions. Toby’s solution is kind of hilarious, and makes me want to coin some phrase such as “Birch–Swinnerton-Dyer–proving construction”. I hadn’t thought of cartesian monoidal: not bad, but not one to use just in passing.

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeAug 18th 2012
    • (edited Aug 19th 2012)

    Wikipedia cops out with ‘Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture’. No fun, Wikipedia! (Especially since the masters of the WP Manual of Style know how to use en dashes perfectly well.)

    Edit: missing word ‘since’.

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeAug 19th 2012

    +1 Tom ;-)