From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.science.mathematics.categories/4585
Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Steve Lack <s.lack@uws.edu.au>
Newsgroups: gmane.science.mathematics.categories
Subject: Re: Another terminological question...
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 06:58:46 +1000
Message-ID: <E1KfMRd-0003yV-04@mailserv.mta.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1241020042 13946 80.91.229.2 (29 Apr 2009 15:47:22 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:47:22 +0000 (UTC)
To: <categories@mta.ca>
Original-X-From: rrosebru@mta.ca Mon Sep 15 19:28:59 2008 -0300
Return-path: <cat-dist@mta.ca>
Envelope-to: categories-list@mta.ca
Delivery-date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 19:28:59 -0300
Original-Received: from Majordom by mailserv.mta.ca with local (Exim 4.61)
	(envelope-from <cat-dist@mta.ca>)
	id 1KfMRd-0003yV-04
	for categories-list@mta.ca; Mon, 15 Sep 2008 19:21:21 -0300
Original-Sender: cat-dist@mta.ca
Precedence: bulk
X-Keywords: 
X-UID: 55
Original-Lines: 59
Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.science.mathematics.categories:4585
Archived-At: <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.mathematics.categories/4585>

Dear Jeff,

I had a chat about this with a couple of other long-time users of the
terms tensor and cotensor (Ross Street and Dominic Verity). We
all think that, given the current overburdening of the word tensor,
this would be a sensible change.

Regards,

Steve Lack.


On 12/09/08 7:56 PM, "Jeff Egger" <jeffegger@yahoo.ca> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> In ``basic concepts of enriched category theory'',
> Kelly writes:
>
>> Since the cone-type limits have no special position of
>> dominancein the general case, we go so far as to call
>> weighted limits simply ``limits'', where confusion
>> seems unlikely.
>
> My question is this: why does he not apply the same
> principle to the concept of powers?  Instead, he
> introduces the word ``cotensor'', apparently in order
> to reserve the word ``power'' for that special case
> which could sensibly be called ``discrete power''.
> [This leads to the unfortunate scenario that a
> ``cotensor'' is a sort of limit, while dually a
> ``tensor'' is a sort of colimit.]  Is there perhaps
> some genuinely mathematical objection to calling
> cotensors powers (and tensors copowers) which I may
> have overlooked?
>
> Cheers,
> Jeff.
>
> P.S. I specify ``genuinely mathematical'' because I
> know that some people are opposed to any change of
> terminology for any reason whatsoever.  Obviously,
> I disagree; in particular, I don't see that minor
> terminological schisms such as monad/triple (even
> compact/rigid/autonomous) are in any way detrimental
> to the subject.
>
> I also disagree with the notion (symptomatic of the
> curiously feudal mentality which seems to permeate the
> mathematical community) that prestigious mathematicians
> have more right to set terminology than the rest of us.
> I see no correlation between mathematical talent and
> good terminology; nor do I understand that a great
> mathematician can be ``dishonoured'' by anything less
> than strict adherence to their terminology---or notation,
> for that matter.
>
>