Not signed in

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

• Forgot your password?
• Apply for membership

1. • CommentRowNumber1.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeNov 1st 2014
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexcreated _[[anti-reduced object]]_, for completeness

   created anti-reduced object, for completeness

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeNov 1st 2014
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexI suppose there are also anti-coreduced objects? (-:

   I suppose there are also anti-coreduced objects? (-:

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeNov 1st 2014
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexFortunately or unfortunately, yes. Luckily, this is your terminology that I am following here :-P (putting together "co-reduced", which I think was your coinage, with "anti-modal", which I also got from you).

   Fortunately or unfortunately, yes. Luckily, this is your terminology that I am following here :-P (putting together “co-reduced”, which I think was your coinage, with “anti-modal”, which I also got from you).

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeNov 2nd 2014
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexRecently I've been using "$\bigcirc$-connected" instead of "anti-$\bigcirc$-modal", since when $\bigcirc$ is the $n$-truncation modality these are the $n$-connected types. So according to that terminology, the "anti-reduced" objects would be "$\Re$-connected". I'm not sure which is better.

   Recently I’ve been using “$\bigcirc$-connected” instead of “anti-$\bigcirc$-modal”, since when $\bigcirc$ is the $n$-truncation modality these are the $n$-connected types. So according to that terminology, the “anti-reduced” objects would be “$\Re$-connected”. I’m not sure which is better.