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.
we didn’t have face
What’s your source for this? Wikipedia seems to disagree that it has to be 2-dimensional.
Sure. I don’t think we need Wikipedia for that. I added a line.
I have seen ’facet’ also used and ’face’ might be restricted to when it can be ’face of’ something higher dimensional (usually by 1, not more).
By the way, while my entry was clearly stubby, it never said that a face has to be 2-dimensional. If we want to have a fight, I’d rather we have it over something substantial. I am announcing these kinds of trivial edits in order to stick to the etiquette of this particular forum, which, in its role as the “talk-pages” of the nLab, is the place to record edits to the $n$Lab, trivial as they may be. I’d hope this goes without saying.
I won’t further touch this entry. All I needed is for a link to “face” in the discussion of loop order of Feynman diagrams to point somewhere. Anyone who feels encyclopedic is invited to work on making this entry the definite source for face-theory on the web.
it never said that a face has to be 2-dimensional
It did say that a “2-cell” is called a face. I suppose one might find exotic structures in which “2-cells” need not be 2-dimensional, but usually they are.
Urs #5: I think you overreacted. My question was an honest one, and I wasn’t picking a fight.
1 to 7 of 7