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.
   • CommentAuthorSimon Boulier
   • CommentTimeJan 8th 2016
   • PermaLink
   Author: Simon Boulier
   Format: TextOn the pages [[simplicial set]] and [[simplicial identities]], objects of the category Δ are numbered from 0. On the contrary, on the page [[simplex category]] they are numbered from 1 (in particular in the definition of simplicial relations). It permits to start from 0 in the augmented case and not from -1 but make very hard not being lost between pages... Can I feel free to change the page [[simplex category]] as it starts also from 0 (and -1 in the augmented case)?

   On the pages simplicial set and simplicial identities, objects of the category Δ are numbered from 0.
   On the contrary, on the page simplex category they are numbered from 1 (in particular in the definition of simplicial relations).
   It permits to start from 0 in the augmented case and not from -1 but make very hard not being lost between pages...
   Can I feel free to change the page simplex category as it starts also from 0 (and -1 in the augmented case)?
2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeJan 8th 2016
   • (edited Jan 8th 2016)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexRight before the statement of the augmented simplicial identities, the page _[[simplex category]]_ states the convention $$ \mathbf{n} = [n-1] \,. $$ Do you want to change that convention? What I would suggest to edit into the page is a statement of the simplicial identities for the non-augmented case (as they appear at _[[simplicial identities]]_) _before_ the augmented case is stated.

   Right before the statement of the augmented simplicial identities, the page simplex category states the convention

   $$\mathbf{n} = [n-1] \,.$$

   Do you want to change that convention?

   What I would suggest to edit into the page is a statement of the simplicial identities for the non-augmented case (as they appear at simplicial identities) before the augmented case is stated.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
   • CommentTimeJan 8th 2016
   • PermaLink
   Author: Todd_Trimble
   Format: MarkdownItexMy own opinion is that many simplicial things do come out more nicely using the "algebraic" labeling by counting vertices rather than by geometric dimension, and I'd hate to lose that by editing out material. For example, it's really helpful when contemplating the augmented simplex category as a monoidal category.

   My own opinion is that many simplicial things do come out more nicely using the “algebraic” labeling by counting vertices rather than by geometric dimension, and I’d hate to lose that by editing out material. For example, it’s really helpful when contemplating the augmented simplex category as a monoidal category.

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorSimon Boulier
   • CommentTimeJan 11th 2016
   • PermaLink
   Author: Simon Boulier
   Format: MarkdownItexI just wanted to replace all the $\mathbf{n}$ by some $[n]$ in the definition and start at $n = -1$. Adding the non-augmented case seems to add a lot of repetitions... Maybe it's better that I leave it as it is.

   I just wanted to replace all the $\mathbf{n}$ by some $[n]$ in the definition and start at $n = -1$.

   Adding the non-augmented case seems to add a lot of repetitions… Maybe it’s better that I leave it as it is.

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeJan 11th 2016
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItex> I just wanted to replace all the $\mathbf{n}$ by some $[n]$ in the definition and start at $n = -1$. On absolute grounds this may be a reasonable step, unforturnately the fully standard convention is different. Maybe you could find a way to make the entry less confusing, where you find it is confusing, while sticking with standard notational conventions? Maybe adding a remark in the right place would help?

   I just wanted to replace all the $\mathbf{n}$ by some $[n]$ in the definition and start at $n = -1$.

   On absolute grounds this may be a reasonable step, unforturnately the fully standard convention is different.

   Maybe you could find a way to make the entry less confusing, where you find it is confusing, while sticking with standard notational conventions? Maybe adding a remark in the right place would help?

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorSimon Boulier
   • CommentTimeJan 11th 2016
   • PermaLink
   Author: Simon Boulier
   Format: MarkdownItexOk, thank you.

   Ok, thank you.