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.
I have expanded on ETCC and introduced a section on ET2CC which I could occasionally fill with Mike’s ideas from MO in case all n-categorists are lying on the beach. I would also propose to replace the current ’idea’ section with what is right now called ’overview’ or some reworking of that.
I think it best to keep everything in a single entry given that these ideas on ETCC with or without 2 meet only a limited enthusiasm in the HOTT times.
Looking good so far!
Yes, looks good, thanks! In general, I think there is no reason for “current enthusiasm” to dictate what should be a separate entry; if two things are separate concepts, they deserve separate entries as long as we have enough content for both (or are willing for one of them to be a stub). But it’ll be a while before I have time either for adding to this myself or for lying on the beach.
“lying on the beach” – learned allusion to Smale’s preferred way of working?? Or something else?
@Todd, are you asking me or Thomas? I was just pointing out that n-category theorists might be occupied with something other than lying on the beach.
I was asking Thomas. But anyone is welcome to answer. :-)
-category theorist or just plain human being, I don’t have time for lying on the beach either. :-)
I’m being slightly lazy and not checking, but do we know that the codomain of the classifying discrete opfibration is a model of ETCS? Or perhaps the discrete opfibration is a universe object?
Re #7.6, link added.
@DavidR, a classifying discrete opfibration certainly won’t automatically model ETCS, but one should be able to assume additional axioms that ensure it does.
Thanks for fixing the link! I’ve finally given more prominence to the MO-link in the reference section as it nicely compelements the nlab-entry.
1 to 10 of 10