Not signed in

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

• Username
• Password
• Remember me

• Sign in using OpenID
• Remember me

• Forgot your password?
• Apply for membership

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 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 internal-categories k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology 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

1. • CommentRowNumber1.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeFeb 17th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownCreated [[solid functor]] with an SVG graphic. The SVG editor is awesome! Even if it is still a little buggy.

   Created solid functor with an SVG graphic. The SVG editor is awesome! Even if it is still a little buggy.

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorAndrew Stacey
   • CommentTimeFeb 17th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Andrew Stacey
   Format: MarkdownI notice that _you_ managed to get it to link stuff together - I noticed that because I thought I'd be helpful and change your text objects to MathML, but deleting a text object also deleted the arrows that it was linked to! (So I left it unchanged for the moment.) Yes it is a little buggy, but Jacques is very actively working on it at the moment so hopefully the bugs will get ironed out fairly quickly. Anything that seems more of a feature than a bug (i.e. not something to be corrected, but something to know about) should be recorded at the [[SVG Editor HowTo]].

   I notice that you managed to get it to link stuff together - I noticed that because I thought I'd be helpful and change your text objects to MathML, but deleting a text object also deleted the arrows that it was linked to! (So I left it unchanged for the moment.)

   Yes it is a little buggy, but Jacques is very actively working on it at the moment so hopefully the bugs will get ironed out fairly quickly. Anything that seems more of a feature than a bug (i.e. not something to be corrected, but something to know about) should be recorded at the SVG Editor HowTo.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeFeb 17th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownIndeed, I didn't have too much trouble linking arrows. However, it seemed to not always correctly update the arrows when I moved the objects, especially after saving and then re-editing (not sure if that had anything to do with it). I couldn't figure out how to get the foreignObject thing to work (evidently) though, and I also never saw the supposed icon that's supposed to turn lines into paths.

   Indeed, I didn't have too much trouble linking arrows. However, it seemed to not always correctly update the arrows when I moved the objects, especially after saving and then re-editing (not sure if that had anything to do with it). I couldn't figure out how to get the foreignObject thing to work (evidently) though, and I also never saw the supposed icon that's supposed to turn lines into paths.

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorHarry Gindi
   • CommentTimeFeb 17th 2010
   • (edited Feb 17th 2010)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Harry Gindi
   Format: MarkdownThe bar that turns lines into paths is up at the top. It's there now. You have to click a line with the select tool and it will appear.

   The bar that turns lines into paths is up at the top. It's there now. You have to click a line with the select tool and it will appear.

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorAndrew Stacey
   • CommentTimeFeb 17th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Andrew Stacey
   Format: MarkdownI guess we should copy all those icons into the SVG Editor HowTo and put a description up of what each does and how to get to it.

   I guess we should copy all those icons into the SVG Editor HowTo and put a description up of what each does and how to get to it.

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorAndrew Stacey
   • CommentTimeFeb 17th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Andrew Stacey
   Format: MarkdownI started playing around with the diagram; work in progress at the [[Sandbox]]. The alignments all look right in the SVG Editor but then don't when I include them back in Instiki, so a bit of tooing-and-froing will be needed to get them right, but that's for another time now.

   I started playing around with the diagram; work in progress at the Sandbox. The alignments all look right in the SVG Editor but then don't when I include them back in Instiki, so a bit of tooing-and-froing will be needed to get them right, but that's for another time now.

7. • CommentRowNumber7.
   • CommentAuthorAndrew Stacey
   • CommentTimeFeb 18th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Andrew Stacey
   Format: MarkdownI've fixed the alignments. They don't look right in the SVG Editor but they look right in the nLab and they also look right when I look at the SVG in my browser, so it seems as though it is the editor that isn't rendering the foreignObjects quite right yet. The aligned version is at [[Sandbox]] (and for the lazy-but-interested, you can see the SVG as a standalone temporarily [here](/~stacey/solidFunctor.svg).

   I've fixed the alignments. They don't look right in the SVG Editor but they look right in the nLab and they also look right when I look at the SVG in my browser, so it seems as though it is the editor that isn't rendering the foreignObjects quite right yet. The aligned version is at Sandbox (and for the lazy-but-interested, you can see the SVG as a standalone temporarily here.

8. • CommentRowNumber8.
   • CommentAuthorvarkor
   • CommentTimeSep 13th 2023
   • PermaLink
   Author: varkor
   Format: MarkdownItexThe introduction to the page says: > One can also say that $U$ has not just a left adjoint but all possible “relative” left adjoints. What was the intention with this phrase? Is it possible to make it precise using [[relative adjunctions]]?

   The introduction to the page says:

   One can also say that $U$ has not just a left adjoint but all possible “relative” left adjoints.

   What was the intention with this phrase? Is it possible to make it precise using relative adjunctions?