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 definitions 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 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.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeJul 13th 2015

    Just some obvious stuff at maximal partial function to satisfy some links.

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJul 13th 2015

    Is \nrightarrow a common notation for partial functions? I’ve seen \rightharpoonup much more frequently.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeJul 13th 2015

    The slash notation is something I’d associate more with general relations. Over at Engeler’s lemma I adopted the \rightharpoonup notation.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeJul 15th 2015

    I really wanted ‘⇸’, with a vertical bar, but LaTeX doesn't seem to have that, and the MathML doesn't come out right when I put it in with Unicode. Either way is fine with me.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJul 15th 2015

    What do you mean by “the MathML doesn’t come out right?” I’ve used ⇸ for barred arrows elsewhere on the lab. (But I also don’t think of it as meaning a partial function, rather a general relation or profunctor, just like \nrightarrow.)

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeJul 19th 2015

    Compare the MathML in the HTML source of the lines below:

    XY X \nrightarrow Y XY X ⇸ Y

    The arrow in the top line is properly rendered as a relation, while the arrow in the bottom line is not. This potentially affects the spacing; in my browser, at least, there is space in the top line that the bottom line misses.

    It's not reasonable to expect iTeX to invent TeX-like names for every Unicode symbol, much less to guess at the proper catcode of a symbol given directly. What iTeX really needs is to respect \mathrel; then we could do this right. (Or I could put in direct MathML, but I really don't want to get into that!) So I generally try to avoid using symbols that iTeX doesn't know (unless I really like them).

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJul 20th 2015

    I would rather use a correct symbol, even if the spacing comes out wrong, but I can see your point.