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 definitions 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 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 nforum 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.
   • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
   • CommentTimeOct 14th 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: TobyBartels
   Format: MarkdownItexI separated [[Cauchy filter]] from [[Cauchy space]].

   I separated Cauchy filter from Cauchy space.

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
   • CommentTimeOct 16th 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: TobyBartels
   Format: MarkdownItexNow with nonstandard analysis.

   Now with nonstandard analysis.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeOct 16th 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexI've never encountered the word "adequality" before, and I thought I'd read a fair amount of NSA. I'm looking forward to seeing the page created...

   I’ve never encountered the word “adequality” before, and I thought I’d read a fair amount of NSA. I’m looking forward to seeing the page created…

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
   • CommentTimeOct 16th 2012
   • (edited Oct 16th 2012)
   • PermaLink
   Author: TobyBartels
   Format: MarkdownItexI could have sworn that we already had it, which is initially why I linked to it. Since the internal search no longer works, I can\'t easily check whether the string `adequal` appears anywhere in the Lab, but Google has neither word ‘adequal’ nor ‘adequality’ indexed, and I can\'t imagine how else that string would appear. There is a [Wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adequality), but that\'s a historical treatment focussing on Fermat (who invented the term), not really what I remember seeing before. Google is no help. But I know that I was reading about this (in the context of NSA) somewhere. Anyway, it simply means that two points are infinitely close together. For example, in a metric space, $x \approx y$ iff $d(x,y)$ is infinitesimal. If $x$ is standard, then $x \approx y$ iff $y$ belongs to the monad of $x$, which makes sense in any topological space (and in fact defines the topology); the relation between arbitrary hyperpoints makes sense in any uniform space (and in fact defines the uniformity). When both $x$ and $y$ are standard, then adequality reduces to the specialisation order (or its symmetrisation; I\'m not sure how the term should be used in non-symmetric spaces).

   I could have sworn that we already had it, which is initially why I linked to it. Since the internal search no longer works, I can't easily check whether the string adequal appears anywhere in the Lab, but Google has neither word ‘adequal’ nor ‘adequality’ indexed, and I can't imagine how else that string would appear.

   There is a Wikipedia page, but that's a historical treatment focussing on Fermat (who invented the term), not really what I remember seeing before. Google is no help. But I know that I was reading about this (in the context of NSA) somewhere.

   Anyway, it simply means that two points are infinitely close together. For example, in a metric space, iff is infinitesimal. If is standard, then iff belongs to the monad of , which makes sense in any topological space (and in fact defines the topology); the relation between arbitrary hyperpoints makes sense in any uniform space (and in fact defines the uniformity). When both and are standard, then adequality reduces to the specialisation order (or its symmetrisation; I'm not sure how the term should be used in non-symmetric spaces).

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
   • CommentTimeOct 16th 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: Todd_Trimble
   Format: MarkdownItexDo you pronounce 'adequal' as "ad+equal", with approximately equal emphasis on the first and second syllables? (Up until now, it never occurred to me that there was an etymological connection between 'adequate' and 'equate', but a quick check in one of my dictionaries seems to indicate that.)

   Do you pronounce ’adequal’ as “ad+equal”, with approximately equal emphasis on the first and second syllables? (Up until now, it never occurred to me that there was an etymological connection between ’adequate’ and ’equate’, but a quick check in one of my dictionaries seems to indicate that.)

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
   • CommentTimeOct 16th 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: TobyBartels
   Format: MarkdownItexI did so pronounce it, but now that you mention ‘adequate’, maybe I won\'t. I\'ve only seen it written.

   I did so pronounce it, but now that you mention ‘adequate’, maybe I won't. I've only seen it written.

7. • CommentRowNumber7.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeOct 17th 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexGot it, thanks! I'm familiar with the concept, but I don't think I've heard a name for it before, aside from "infinite closeness".

   Got it, thanks! I’m familiar with the concept, but I don’t think I’ve heard a name for it before, aside from “infinite closeness”.

8. • CommentRowNumber8.
   • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
   • CommentTimeOct 19th 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: David_Corfield
   Format: MarkdownItexRe #5, the Latin ancestor of adequate appears in Aquinas's >Veritas est adaequatio intellectus et rei. There's a lot packed into that 'adequation' of mind and thing.

   Re #5, the Latin ancestor of adequate appears in Aquinas’s

   Veritas est adaequatio intellectus et rei.

   There’s a lot packed into that ’adequation’ of mind and thing.

9. • CommentRowNumber9.
   • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
   • CommentTimeOct 19th 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: TobyBartels
   Format: MarkdownItexTruth is the adequation of mind and thing, is that what it says?

   Truth is the adequation of mind and thing, is that what it says?

10. • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeOct 21st 2012
    • PermaLink
    Author: David_Corfield
    Format: MarkdownItexThat's right.

    That’s right.