Not signed in (Sign In)

Start a new discussion

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 bundles calculus categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-theory cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality education elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity 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 infinity integration integration-theory k-theory lie-theory limit limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monads monoid monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology multicategories nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pages pasting philosophy physics planar 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 science 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 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.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJul 21st 2017

    I removed the footnote at adjunct (as just noted elsewhere, I don’t think footnotes are usually a good choice). I put a brief mention of the musical notation in the main text, put the example of currying in an “Examples” section, and the references in a “References” section. I removed the discussion about pronunciation entirely; I think there is no need to tell the reader how to pronounce mathematical notation, at least when it is fairly obvious (how else would you pronounce f f^\sharp than “f-sharp”?).

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJul 21st 2017

    Similar edit at exponential object.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 21st 2017
    • (edited Jul 21st 2017)

    how else would you pronounce f f^\sharp than “f-sharp”

    it could easily be read “f-hash”.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeJul 21st 2017

    But when f f^\sharp is coupled with f f^\flat, there can be no doubt.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorPeter Heinig
    • CommentTimeJul 21st 2017
    • (edited Jul 21st 2017)

    But when f f^\sharp is coupled with f f^\flat, there can be no doubt.

    To me is seems rather the other way round: especially when f f^\flat shows up (and someone is neither knowledgeable or industrious enough to click the “source” link and look at the latex, nor musically educated), then there can be doubt, and it will usually be read “f bee” (by such readers, I mean).

    Personally, I think mentioning “sharp”, “flat” and even “stave notation”, and yes, in a footnote, better, but this is my feeling/opinion only and I will not try to give reasons for this.

    I greatly appreciate that the nLab has some sort of editorial line and tries to maintain a reasonably uniform style. We should not get into an argument about \sharp and \flat.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeJul 21st 2017
    • (edited Jul 21st 2017)

    While \sharp and #\# are sufficiently different to make it clear something is up, it’s not obvious at all that f !f_! is pronounced “f lower shriek” (and ditto for upper shriek), so that is perhaps warranted.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeJul 21st 2017

    As a compromise: if Urs and Peter really feel there is a danger here, then something like “sometimes the notation f f^\sharp and f f^\flat (as in music) is used” should be more than sufficient. We should trust that readers have a basic general education, after all.

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJul 21st 2017

    I agree that the pronunciation of f !f_! is worth mentioning where it appears, and I’d be okay with Todd’s suggestion in #7.

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeJul 21st 2017

    I made the musical notes (ha ha) in adjunct and exponential object. I’m not sure where f !f_! appears (probably lots of places; where should we make a note of it?).

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeJul 21st 2017
    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJul 21st 2017
Add your comments
  • Please log in or leave your comment as a "guest post". If commenting as a "guest", please include your name in the message as a courtesy. Note: only certain categories allow guest posts.
  • To produce a hyperlink to an nLab entry, simply put double square brackets around its name, e.g. [[category]]. To use (La)TeX mathematics in your post, make sure Markdown+Itex is selected below and put your mathematics between dollar signs as usual. Only a subset of the usual TeX math commands are accepted: see here for a list.

  • (Help)