Most likely.

 

Whitney uses the terms ‘natural isomorphism’ and ‘natural homomorphism’ as well as the terms ‘natural topology’ and ‘natural neighborhood’ at many different places in the paper. But these terms are never explicitly defined.

 

Cheers,

 

Jean-Pierre

 

 

De : Wesley Phoa <doctorwes@gmail.com>
Date : lundi, 18 décembre 2023 à 14:18
À : Michael Barr, Prof. <barr.michael@mcgill.ca>
Cc : categories@mq.edu.au <categories@mq.edu.au>
Objet : Re: Modification of what I said

Was he referring to the paper “Tensor products of abelian groups”, cited in this discussion? https://mathoverflow.net/questions/287869/history-of-natural-transformations

 

I don’t have access to it either, but it’s on Scribd: https://www.scribd.com/document/172981416/Hassler-Whitney-Tensor-Products-of-Abelian-Groups

 

The terms “natural isomorphism” and “natural homomorphism” are used on pages 500-501, and these do turn out to be natural transformations, but it’s not obvious that he intended to explicitly define a new formal concept.

 

Wesley

 

Sent from my iPad

On Dec 18, 2023, at 10:00 AM, Michael Barr, Prof. <barr.michael@mcgill.ca> wrote:



Peter Freyd claims that Hassler Whitney defined natural transformation in a 1938 paper.  I no longer have access to Math. Reviews (except by going to McGill, which I have done only once in the last four years) so I cannot supply a reference.

 

Michael

You're receiving this message because you're a member of the Categories mailing list group from Macquarie University. To take part in this conversation, reply all to this message.

View group files   |   Leave group   |   Learn more about Microsoft 365 Groups