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 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 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 sheaves 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.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJul 16th 2013
    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJan 8th 2021
    • (edited Jan 8th 2021)

    In the Examples-section (here) I have added mentioning of

    • distributive categories

    • pointed topological spaces (with respect to wedge sum and smash product).

    diff, v8, current

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorRodMcGuire
    • CommentTimeJan 8th 2021

    fixed the strange reference which may not work

    • Mark Weber, Multitensors and monads on categories of enriched graphs, spnet {#Weber}


    • Mark Weber, Multitensors and monads on categories of enriched graphs, TAC 28(26), 2013, (tac) {#Weber}

    Is there any nLab standard syntax for referencing TAC articles?

    diff, v9, current

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJan 9th 2021
    • (edited Jan 9th 2021)

    Is there any nLab standard syntax for referencing TAC articles?

    I am formatting as you just did, with one slight exception: Following early suggestions by Zoran, I have adopted the habit of always displaying the code numbers that go with a webpage where a reference is hosted:

    So in this case I would end the item with


    rendering to


    Similarly for “doi:xyz” or “jstor:xyz” or “arXiv:xyz” or “ISBN:xyz”, etc.

    Another minor thing is that I put the anchor labels right to the beginning of the paragraph that they are anchoring, instead of the end. This to avoid that the parser gets mixed up about where the anchor goes, which was a problem at least at some point.

    And finally, I include the publication year in the anchor for a reference. This is to facilitate copy-and-pasting references across pages without their anchors clashing too much.

    So in summary, I would code that reference as follows:

      * {#Weber13} [[Mark Weber]], *Multitensors and monads on categories of enriched graphs*, [[TAC]] 28(26), 2013, ([tac:28-26](
    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 5th 2023
    • (edited Apr 5th 2023)

    I have spelled out (here) the (utterly elementary) example of how the category of Set-indexed vector spaces is distributive monoidal with respect to the “external” tensor product.

    Will add this also to VectBund.

    diff, v11, current

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJun 4th 2023

    added pointer to:

    diff, v13, current

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJun 4th 2023

    added pointer to:

    diff, v13, current

  1. adding the category of pointed sets to the list of examples in the “Various” section

    Amy Reed

    diff, v14, current

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJun 8th 2023
    • (edited Jun 8th 2023)

    fixed the wording regarding “more generally” (ie.: pointed sets are a special case of pointed topological spaces, not the other way around)

    diff, v15, current

  2. In “such that the canonical morphisms … are isomorphisms”, indicate which way the canonical morphisms go, and don’t use isomorphism notation for them before they have been declared to be isomorphisms.

    Peter Selinger

    diff, v16, current

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorJ-B Vienney
    • CommentTimeJul 3rd 2024

    Just added parentheses. It was unclear what the second requirement in the definition means without them.

    diff, v18, current

    • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorJ-B Vienney
    • CommentTimeJul 3rd 2024
    • (edited Jul 3rd 2024)

    On the other hand, I don’t understand why there are parentheses in the domains of the two canonical morphisms. Isn’t it more natural to consider the tensor product prioritary over the coproduct than the opposite convention given that the coproduct is often considered as a sum? This is the convention adopted in the entry distributive category.

    It seems that the first person who wrote the page was considering the coproduct to be prioritary.