Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below
Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
An ‘anonymous coward’ has made quite substantial changes to Geometric nerve of a bicategory, which do not seem to me to be quite fair to Jack Duskin’s contribution. Ross Street makes it clear that Jack and he worked together on the start of the orientals project. Orientals are not mentioned in the entry except for the referenced paper. Also the term geometric nerve is the term used by Duskin. If the person who has changed things is concerned about precedence of papers then they should have mentioned Boardman and Vogt, and Cordier, who both provided insights that led to the definition. What do others of you think?
Looking at the edit changes, this is indeed a somewhat agressive edit.
It’s been a while since I looked into this. Maybe it’s actually justified on some objective grounds, I don’t know. On the other hand the term “Duskin nerve” is absolutely standard, and just removing mentioning of this seems wrong even if (which I don’t know) the idea is not fully originally due to Duskin.
Hopefully somebody with a spare five minutes for this looks into it and edits the entry a bit to alleviate the edits by that Anonymous.
Urs, your reaction reflects mine. I will do some minor edits to it and then see how it looks.
Actually I do not think the description is correct! The canonical embedding of into is not the one that works here as that gives that each hom-category in the resulting bicategory will be discrete or am I mixing things up. (Edit: I now see the point, but feel that the entry needs some ’tender loving care’ as I did not initially ’twig’ as to how the NLax bit came in!)
I renamed this entry so as to conform with the lower case initial letter convention.
1 to 6 of 6