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 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 definitions deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration 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 kan lie-theory limit 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 newpage nlab nonassociative 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 subobject 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.
    • 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 ;-)

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)