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.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeSep 12th 2012

    when the Lab is back, could somebody please remember to remove the redirect setoid from equivalence relation and have it instead point to Bishop set ? Thanks.

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeApr 12th 2021

    De-emphasized the terminology “setoid” here, since it often means a set with a pseudo-equivalence relation instead.

    diff, v33, current

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorGuest
    • CommentTimeApr 20th 2022
    An equivalence relation is a (0,1)-dagger category.
    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeOct 12th 2022

    Redirect: relation of equivalence.

    Link to a new page tolerance relation (stub to be created in minutes).

    diff, v42, current

  1. added redirects for thin groupoid and thin groupoids

    Anonymous

    diff, v43, current

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJun 17th 2023
    • (edited Jun 17th 2023)

    Following discussion in another thread (here) I have truncated the paragraph

    A set equipped with an equivalence relation is sometimes called a setoid; however the term setoid is primarily used for a pseudo-equivalence relation instead, and the usage on the nLab follows the latter.

    after the semicolon. The claim that “the nLab follows” some convention is generally dubious but particularly here where the nLab wasn’t even told about it (the Anonymous edit in rev 38 was not announced).

    While we are at it: I don’t find the paragraph that follows was adding clarity:

    This terminology is particularly common in foundations of mathematics where quotient sets don't always exist and the above equivalence to a set cannot be carried out. However, arguably this is a terminological mismatch, and such people should say ’set’ where they say ’setoid’ and something else (such as ’preset’, ’type’, or ’completely presented set’) where they say ’set’. (See Bishop set and page 9 of these lecture notes.)

    I find this more than less confusing: Who is meant with “such people”? In any case, these are matters that should be sorted out at setoid. So I took the liberty of just deleting this paragraph and in its place adding, after the link to “setoid”, the words: “see there for more”.

    diff, v44, current