I understand the motivation of the existing text, and have crafted a suitable warning.
Aside: is there any reason we shouldn’t define a faithful functor between (∞,1)-categories to be one that is locally monic?
]]>Maybe just say that 0-truncated morphisms in an -category are a generalization of faithful functors between groupoids?
]]>I’m not sure that 0-truncated morphisms are the right thing to list under generalizations of the notion of faithful functor.
It seems a reasonable characterization for functors between infinity groupoids, since being 0-truncated means is a monomorphism.
But it doesn’t seem reasonable for functors between infinity categories. For example, if is a 1-category with no nontrivial isomorphisms, then when viewing as an infinity category, is a 0-truncated morphism of (since the nerve of is a complete segal space whose levels are all sets). But need not be a faithful functor in the sence of 1-categories.
I would expect “locally monic” would be the right generalization to infinity categories, and dually “locally an effective epimorphism” would be the right generalization of “full”.
]]>If it wasn’t clear the way it was, then I suggest to expand on it while sticking to the notation that the paragraph starts with. I have made it show this (here):
Also I have removed the side-remark you added that faithful functors are called “embeddings”, because that terminology is fraught with issues. Instead I have added under “Related concepts” a pointer to embedding of categories, where this is discussed in more detail.
]]>added properties of faithful functor in terms of hom-sets
]]>there was a pointer to the generalization of “faithful functor” to 2-categories. I have added below that pointer to the corresponding version for -categories.
]]>