Yes, thanks for catching. Fixed now.

]]>Is there a typo in diagram (2) (the commutative square)? I don’t see how the vertical arrows are induced by $g:c_2\rightarrow c_1$ and $h:d_1\rightarrow d_2$ - I have read the definition of hom-functor. It works if $Hom(L(c_1), d_1$ is considered instead of $Hom(L(c_2), d_1)$, and same goes for other hom sets.

]]>Whoops! It was Prop. 1.9 that needed to have C and D switched. Done.

]]>Switched D and C in Prop. 1.10 to make it match the rest.

]]>Fix of the fix of the fix

]]>Fix of the typo fix…

]]>Fixed typos in diagrams.

]]>fixed typos

Spencer Dembner

]]>fixed typos

Spencer Dembner

]]>If you write `<https://edeany.com>`

it will automatically be a link (https://edeany.com).

Not clear what lemma you’re talking about. You should probably just state your lemma here rather than getting people to copy and paste your address into a separate window and then read a bunch of stuff.

]]>There is a certain lemma about adjoint functors that makes some of these things more manifest. See “Adjunctions” here https://edeany.com. Are people ok with me adding this lemma here?

]]>Yes, that’s right. I corrected another one.

]]>Fixes typo in diagram: the discussion that follows implies C should be the domain of the functor L and the codomain of the functor R, and not vice versa. There may be other similar typos in the remainder of the article, I haven’t done an exhaustive search (and am not good enough with LaTeX to be confident making extensive edits).

Asad

]]>The issues with escaping should now be fixed.

]]>Yes, currently the Tikz code cannot be escaped, either by a `<nowiki>`

block or in a code block. It is tricky to get this to work due to the interaction between the new and old renderer. I will try to fix it when I get the chance. In the meantime, one can always link to the source.

Thanks!

I just wanted to add this to the HowTo here, as another escaped-code example, but it seesm that generally the parser gets confused when there is escaped tikz-code, so I am removing it again.

]]>`\ar[r,<-]`

or `\ar[from=r]`

(I’m not actually sure if these is a difference between these)

replaced the first occurence of an Instikiti `array`

-hack for adjoint pair notation by a `tikzcd`

-version

```
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzcd}
\mathcal{D}
\arrow[r, shift right=6pt, "R"', "\bot"]
&
\mathcal{C}
\arrow[l, shift right=6pt, "L"']
\end{tikzcd}
\end{center}
```

Suggestions for improvements welcome.

What’s the `tikzcd`

-analog of what in `xymatrix`

is

```
\ar@{<-}[r]
```

?

]]>Corrected the order of adjoint functors in one place.

]]>I have polished and expanded the discussion of left adjoints via pointwise limits over comma categories, now this Prop..

]]>after the lead-in sentence claiming a key role of the concept of adjoint functors, I added this as a footnote:

]]>“In all those areas where category theory is actively used the categorical concept of adjoint functor has come to play a key role.” (first line from

An interview with William Lawvere, paraphrasing the first paragraph ofTaking categories seriously)

now I have similarly touched the next section: *In terms of universal factorization through a (co)unit*

Now I have polished and expanded the next section: *In terms of representable functors*