## Not signed in

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

## Site Tag Cloud

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

• CommentRowNumber1.
• CommentAuthorMike Shulman
• CommentTimeDec 14th 2009

Created extranatural transformation by moving the relevant information from dinatural transformation and adding the definition. Disagreements are welcome, but I feel that since dinaturals that aren't extranatural are so rare and harder to deal with and understand, extranaturals merit their own page.

• CommentRowNumber2.
• CommentAuthorTobyBartels
• CommentTimeDec 14th 2009

Looks good to me.

• CommentRowNumber3.
• CommentAuthorYaron
• CommentTime5 days ago

I have a (perhaps silly) question regarding the entry extranatural transformation. After Lemmas 1-3, it is stated that “In fact, these lemmas essentially capture “all possible” ways in which extranatural transformations can be composed. The general statement, which is obtained by combining these, is that if the graphs representing the two transformations can be composed without creating any closed loops, then the transformations can be composed, and the resulting graph is the composite of the individual graphs.”

However, I don’t understand how, for example, the general version of yanking, where the domain of $G$ has any odd number of factors (Prop. 1 of Eilenberg-Kelly) follows by combining Lemmas 1-3 as stated. To really become the “general building blocks,” shouldn’t Lemma 1-3 be stated with any number of even (Lemma 1,2) or odd (Lemma 3) factors for the relevant transformations, as in Props. 1,2,2* of E-K?

• CommentRowNumber4.
• CommentAuthorMike Shulman
• CommentTime4 days ago

That statement seems to be my fault. I’m not sure what I had in mind. Please fix it!

• CommentRowNumber5.
• CommentAuthorYaron
• CommentTime4 days ago

Sure. It will take me a day or two to get to it, and I will update when I’m done.

• CommentRowNumber6.
• CommentAuthorYaron
• CommentTime4 days ago

Done. I hope that all the right indices are there. I have also slightly changed the concluding sentence after Lemma 1-3.

• CommentRowNumber7.
• CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
• CommentTime4 days ago

Thanks, Yaron!

• CommentRowNumber8.
• CommentAuthorYaron
• CommentTime4 days ago

Sure, my pleasure!

• CommentRowNumber9.
• CommentAuthorMike Shulman
• CommentTime3 days ago

Nice, thanks!

I wonder whether it would be worth stating the theorems in the simpler $n=1$ case first, to help the reader’s intuition, before the general one with all the indices?

• CommentRowNumber10.
• CommentAuthorYaron
• CommentTime3 days ago

Sounds like a good idea.