Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

• Forgot your password?
• Apply for membership

1. • CommentRowNumber1.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeSep 19th 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexI noticed that in > * [[action]], [[∞-action]] > * [[module]], [[∞-module]] > * [[representation]], [[∞-representation]] the _[[∞-module]]_ was kind of missing (we had [[module over an algebra over an (∞,1)-operad]]). So I created something stubby.

   I noticed that in

   • action, ∞-action

   • module, ∞-module

   • representation, ∞-representation

   the ∞-module was kind of missing (we had module over an algebra over an (∞,1)-operad). So I created something stubby.

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorzskoda
   • CommentTimeSep 20th 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: zskoda
   Format: MarkdownItexIsn't just "module" the preferred term ?

   Isn’t just “module” the preferred term ?

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeSep 20th 2012
   • (edited Sep 20th 2012)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexOne day als "category" will be the preferred term for "$(\infty,1)$-category". But we are not quite at the point yet that it would be useful to enforce the [[implicit infinity-category theory convention]] globally on the $n$Lab. I'd think.

   One day als “category” will be the preferred term for “$(\infty,1)$-category”. But we are not quite at the point yet that it would be useful to enforce the implicit infinity-category theory convention globally on the $n$Lab. I’d think.

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorzskoda
   • CommentTimeSep 20th 2012
   • (edited Sep 20th 2012)
   • PermaLink
   Author: zskoda
   Format: MarkdownItexNo, I am not that radical (one could say that category would be then $(\infty,\infty)$ if we take that every notion should be by deafult taken absolutely most generally). I mean CONTEXT should always be specified precisely. Once the context is known then no modifiers are needed. For example, one traditionally meant by a ball, certain kind of geometrical bodies in Euclidean space. Once one takes their equation one can have a version in metric space. Usually, if one just say a ball, one will hardly mean that this is in the generality of metric space. But in the context of metric spaces one does not need to say metric ball, just ball is enough. So never mentioning infinity and just saying category is misleading. But once we say we work with infinity categories then module is just module in this context. This is my opinion.

   No, I am not that radical (one could say that category would be then $(\infty,\infty)$ if we take that every notion should be by deafult taken absolutely most generally). I mean CONTEXT should always be specified precisely. Once the context is known then no modifiers are needed. For example, one traditionally meant by a ball, certain kind of geometrical bodies in Euclidean space. Once one takes their equation one can have a version in metric space. Usually, if one just say a ball, one will hardly mean that this is in the generality of metric space. But in the context of metric spaces one does not need to say metric ball, just ball is enough. So never mentioning infinity and just saying category is misleading. But once we say we work with infinity categories then module is just module in this context. This is my opinion.

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeSep 20th 2012
   • (edited Sep 20th 2012)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItex> one could say that category would be then (∞,∞) No, I think the "$\infty$-" to be dropped is that which is equivalent to "homotopy-". So in 50 years we'll say "category" for $(\infty,1)$-category and "$n$-category" for $(\infty,n)$-category and "$\infty$-category" for "$(\infty,\infty)$-category". Apart from this, I am not sure what you would like me to change. If the context is clear, then we can drop the "$\infty$-". But every $n$Lab entry is its own context, and so we can't drop it in the title of the entry _[[∞-module]]_.

   one could say that category would be then (∞,∞)

   No, I think the “$\infty$-” to be dropped is that which is equivalent to “homotopy-“. So in 50 years we’ll say “category” for $(\infty,1)$-category and “$n$-category” for $(\infty,n)$-category and “$\infty$-category” for “$(\infty,\infty)$-category”.

   Apart from this, I am not sure what you would like me to change. If the context is clear, then we can drop the “$\infty$-“. But every $n$Lab entry is its own context, and so we can’t drop it in the title of the entry ∞-module.