I was asked about the genesis of the term “concept with an attitude”, so I have added a paragraph on that, here.

]]>Added an example (*flow of time* in temporal logic)

added (here) an item for *causal set*

Kaarel Hänni

]]>added (here) an item for *causal set*

Added an entry for *sieve*: here.

]]>A

sieveis just a subfunctor of a representable functor, but calling them “sieves” serves to indicate that (mostly) one is interested in regarding these ascoversof a Grothendieck topology or coverage, making the ambient category into a site.

added one more item: lists:

A *list* is just a tuple, but calling it a list indicates that one is interested in the operation of concatenation of lists.

Finally following up on #30 I have moved a couple of the less compelling examples to the end of the entry, under “Further examples” (now here).

While at it, I adjusted and then expanded wording of the the previously incomplete example “Module objects” (now here).

]]>Added (here) one more item to the list:

An *abstract re-writing system* is just a relation on some set $X$.

However, calling this relation an abstract rewriting system indicates that one is interested in studying the behaviour of chains of related elements $x \to x_1 \to x_2 \to \cdots$ (thought of as successive stages of rewriting $x$), for instance to see if they are confluent.

]]>

Yeah I get what you mean. In certain foundations of set theory such as ETCS, an “element” is also a concept with an attitude, being simply a function out of the terminal set, which is not the case in other foundations of set theory (SEAR, MLTT, etc).

]]>Thanks.

Somehow *subset* is not quite as satisfying an example. The good examples would have lay people say: *What do you mean by X? Ah you just mean a Y.* This is not so plausible for X = subset and Y = predicate.

Of course I see what you mean. Maybe we should bring some order into the list, having the more striking examples be on top and the more subtle ones further below.

]]>added subsets

Anonymous

]]>Added curves from differential geometry

Anonymous

]]>adding dynamical systems

Anonymous

]]>added (here) an item for *persistence module*

Thanks. That Young diagram was over-ambitious.

]]>Made it singular, tableau.

]]>added this example:

A *Young diagram* is a partition that wants to become a Young tableau.

Added copresheaf.

]]>I added series as an example. I put it first since it’s the most elementary and hence the easiest to understand.

]]>Sure, I like that example. Please add it.

]]>Would ’sequence’ and ’series’ be an example?

A *series* is just a sequence. But one says *series* instead of *sequence* when one is interested in studying partial summations.

Or would that be stronger than ’with an attitude’ because the word ’converges’ means different things? The series $n\mapsto a_n$ converges if and only if the sequence $n\mapsto \sum_{i\lt n}a_i$ converges, which is different from the sequence $n\mapsto a_n$ converging.

]]>Added one more example (here):

Tensor networks in solid state physics are string diagrams with an attitude.

]]>Adjusted accordingly.

]]>To keep it fun, I suggest to make sure that each item in the list starts out with the exact same pattern, with the words: “An X is just a Y. But one says ’X’ in order to…”

]]>