From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.science.mathematics.categories/1948
Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: jdolan@math.ucr.edu
Newsgroups: gmane.science.mathematics.categories
Subject: Re: Limits
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 14:04:36 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <200105042104.f44L4al17252@math-cl-n03.ucr.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org
X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1241018225 1353 80.91.229.2 (29 Apr 2009 15:17:05 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:17:05 +0000 (UTC)
To: categories@mta.ca
Original-X-From: rrosebru@mta.ca Fri May  4 20:40:07 2001 -0300
Return-Path: <cat-dist@mta.ca>
Original-Received: (from Majordom@localhost)
	by mailserv.mta.ca (8.11.1/8.11.1) id f44NGiI11870
	for categories-list; Fri, 4 May 2001 20:16:44 -0300 (ADT)
X-Authentication-Warning: mailserv.mta.ca: Majordom set sender to cat-dist@mta.ca using -f
Original-Sender: cat-dist@mta.ca
Precedence: bulk
X-Keywords: 
X-UID: 16
Original-Lines: 16
Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.science.mathematics.categories:1948
Archived-At: <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.mathematics.categories/1948>

i wrote:

|phenomenon of adjoint linear operators is, in yetter's terminology, a
|sort of decategorification of the phenomenon of adjoint functors.

now that i think about i guess it was crane rather than yetter who
started using the term "categorification".

is it correct that lawvere and schanuel use the term "objectification"
(or something like that) to mean pretty much the same thing as what
crane meant by "categorification"?  i think i might actually prefer
"objectification" here but i mostly hang out near sub-communities
where "categorification" has caught on to a certain extent.