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.
almost missed that meanwhile we have an entry pullback-power. So I added more redirects and expanded a little.
Is there a reason for pullback-power to have a hyphen in it, while pushout product doesn’t have one?
Both versions redirect. Which version is preferred?
My only point here is that whatever spelling is used as the primary spelling, it should be consistent with respect to both entries, i.e., either pushout-product and pullback-power or pushout product and pullback power.
By the way, I prefer to call it pullback hom, mostly because we have hom-tensor adjunctions, not power-tensor adjunctions.
By the way, I prefer to call it pullback hom, mostly because we have hom-tensor adjunctions, not power-tensor adjunctions.
But in general it doesn’t come from a hom-functor but just from a powering functor. The real trouble is the the “pushout product” ought to be called the “pushout copower”.
In any case, please feel invited to add your favorite redirects to the entries.
The real trouble is the the “pushout product” ought to be called the “pushout copower”.
Fair enough. I guess I also tend to use tensor-hom to refer to copower-power.
I removed the hyphen from the title and added a redirect from pullback-power.
Maybe if the (co)powering actually does come from a tensor or hom, then we can still call it pullback hom?
1 to 6 of 6