Re: terminology: dagger and involution

["V. Schmitt" <vs27@mcs.le.ac.uk>]

John Baez wrote:

>Marco wrote:
>
>
>
>>what you are calling a "dagger-category", i.e.
>>
>>   a category equipped with a contravariant involutive
>>   endofunctor, which is the identity on objects,
>>
>>has been called "a category with involution", at least from Burgin
>>1969 to Lambek 2001. "Involutive category" has also been used, if
>>less.
>>
>>I think it would be better to come back to the old term, which is
>>meaningful, translatable, and old.
>>
>>
>
>There's also a body of work, mainly from mathematical physics, that
>calls these categories "star-categories".
>
>But, by now there's enough literature using the term "dagger-categories"
>that the genie is out of the bottle.
>
>Best,
>jb
>
>
>
>
>
>
Dear John, just my view: this is not a good argument.

I do not know about these dagger categories though
i read about the compact closed ones.
So may be I miss the point but, if this is the case, why
introducing a new terminology if the concepts are not?
That just creates confusion.


Best,
Vincent