Re: dagger and involution

[Dusko Pavlovic <dusko@kestrel.edu>]

deciding whether the involution on a category should be written as a
dagger or as a star sounds to me a bit like deciding whether a
polynomial should be in x or in y. i worked with people who use the
dagger, and didnt work with people who use the star, but it would be
good if i could keep my options open.

but anyway, denoting the math structures by the typographic symbols used
in them sounds like an amusing idea. after a hundred years of progress
in creating new structures, and metafonting new symbols for them, we'll
probably be in possession of a fairly rich new language of hieroglyphs.

-- dusko


John Baez wrote:

> [snip]
>
>I hope this is clear: "dagger-categories" are completely different
>from "compact closed categories".  We need *some* term for them;
>we're just arguing about whether to call them "star-categories",
>"dagger-categories", or "categories with involution".  I like
>"star-categories", because in analysis and quantum topology the
>special case of "C*-categories" is very important.  But, I doubt
>we'll reach any sort of agreement!
>
>Best,
>jb
>
>
>
>
>