(That would be pretty cool.)
]]>Okay, good, yes!
And I am fine with changing s to ʃ, yes. I just feel overwhelmed with doing it globally and consistently.
(One fine day we might have Lab-wide macros…)
]]>If you don’t think there’s a problem with ʃ, I’m okay with it. I guess in other contexts you would be integrating a function rather than a type. Okay, let’s go with ʃ.
Would you object if someone else happened to change s to ʃs in an nLab page? I’m not planning to go through the whole nLab either, but if I happen to be editing some page anyway, I might want to make it consistent.
]]>But is there really an issue with “ʃ” ? To the extent that people think of ʃ as being “integral over ” where is a type, it actually makes sense: it can be thought of as the homotopy coend over thought of as a simplicial object. So the only sensible interpretatin of ʃ as an “integral over ” is actually the intended interpretation! So that’s good, not a problem.
I’d think.
]]>I think it’s a shame if the use of $ in LaTeX means that we can’t ever also use it in mathematics. LaTeX uses % for comments, but we still feel free to use it for percentages. (-: And it seems unlikely to me that a LaTeX typo would ever actually produce a file which compiled and yet contained some $ characters in the output. But I guess two data points suggests that more other mathematicians would also feel uncomfortable with it.
]]>(although I don’t know how to type it)
see here
I’d always feel $ was some LaTeX typo.
Yes, that’s my first association, too. But I suppose I could get used to it.
]]>FWIW, I don’t like $ that much, and like the integral-looking thing more (although I don’t know how to type it). I’d always feel $ was some LaTeX typo.
]]>You have to decide. To me the similarity of with seems to be of the same sort of that of with ʃ. I am happy to live with both.
The symbol “$” seems to raise the wrong associations in me, but I guess I can get used to it.
What is not practical for me (if that was suggested above, maybe) is to go and change all the numerous occurences of in all Lab entries, all my published articles and all my preprints. Nor does it seem desireable to me.
I am happy with telling the reader at the beginning of each context which notation it should be.
]]>Did we settle on ʃ? I thought there was some argument that the potential for confusion with an integral sign was undesirable. I kind of like .
]]>Maybe for the time being we can just state that ʃ is to be read synonymously with , with the former potentially preferred in type theory, while the latter potentially preferred from the point of view of algebraic topology.
]]>So whenever we come across a , we should replace it by ʃ, right? E.g., many in this section.
]]>created little entries
to go along with the previous entries
(whose Forum-discussion is here)
All of this is part of the cohesion - table.
]]>