From: Andre Joyal <joyal.andre@uqam.ca>
To: "John Baez" <john.c.baez@gmail.com>, "categories" <categories@mta.ca>
Subject: Re: bilax_monoidal_functors?=
Date: Sun, 9 May 2010 12:26:02 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <E1OBEI2-0000mS-7K@mailserv.mta.ca> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <E1OAsS6-0001ay-ER@mailserv.mta.ca>
Dear John and Michael,
It all depends on where you start counting.
For americans, the first floor of a buiding is the ground floor
but for most europeans, it is the floor right above:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storey#Numbering
We sometime need to recall in which part of the world we are
when we take an elevator!
But a ten stories building is the same for everyone.
More seriously, John wrote:
>I use "k-tuply monoidal" to mean what you'd call "(k-1)-braided". This
>seems preferable to me, not because it sounds nicer - it doesn't - but
>because it starts counting at a somewhat more natural place. I believe that
>counting monoidal structures is more natural than counting braidings.
Michael wrote:
>I am using a mixture of your terminologies:
> monoidal = 1-braided
> braided = 2-braided
> sylleptic = 3-braided
I understand your ideas both. Along the same line we could also use:
E1-category = Monoidal
E2-category = Braided monoidal
E3-category = .....
.....
John wrote:
>By the way: I don't remember anyone on this mailing list ever asking if
>their own terminology is good. I only remember them complaining about other
>people's terminology. I applaud your departure from this unpleasant
>tradition!
My goal is to have a public discussion on terminology.
It can be very difficult to agree upon because
adopting one is like commiting to a rule of law,
to a moral code, possibly to a social code.
There is an emotional and social aspect to this commitment.
There is also a psychological aspect because a terminology
looks natural if you use it long enough (it is a matter of a few days).
I hope that a public discussion can help peoples
choosing their terminology.
I do think that my terminology for higher braided
monoidal categories is quite good.
Let me say a few things in its defense:
First, it extends naturally a terminology which is used
by the mathematical community since many decades.
Only a specialist can truly appreciate E(k)-categories or
k-tuply monoidal categories. Second, a braiding is a commutation
structure. To call a monoidal category 1-braided is kind of
confusing because there is no commutation structure
on a general monoidal category. A monoidal category is 0-braided.
Third, a n-braided (topological or simplicial) group is exactly what
you need to describe the homotopy type of an n-connected space (n\geq 1).
I wonder who introduced the notion of E(n)-space and
the terminology?
Best regards,
André
[For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-05-09 16:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-05-08 3:27 RE : bilax monoidal functors John Baez
2010-05-09 10:38 ` autonomous terminology: WAS: " Dusko Pavlovic
2010-05-09 22:41 ` Colin McLarty
2010-05-10 12:09 ` posina
2010-05-10 17:40 ` Jeff Egger
2010-05-09 16:26 ` Andre Joyal [this message]
2010-05-10 14:58 ` bilax_monoidal_functors?= Eduardo J. Dubuc
2010-05-10 19:28 ` bilax_monoidal_functors Jeff Egger
2010-05-13 17:17 ` bilax_monoidal_functors Michael Shulman
2010-05-14 14:43 ` terminology (was: bilax_monoidal_functors) Peter Selinger
2010-05-15 19:52 ` terminology Toby Bartels
2010-05-15 1:05 ` bilax_monoidal_functors Andre Joyal
[not found] ` <20100514144324.D83A35C275@chase.mathstat.dal.ca>
2010-05-15 4:41 ` terminology (was: bilax_monoidal_functors) Michael Shulman
2010-05-10 10:28 ` bilax monoidal functors Urs Schreiber
2010-05-11 3:17 ` bilax_monoidal_functors Andre Joyal
[not found] ` <4BE81F26.4020903@dm.uba.ar>
2010-05-10 18:16 ` bilax_monoidal_functors?= John Baez
2010-05-11 1:04 ` bilax_monoidal_functors?= Michael Shulman
2010-05-12 20:02 ` calculus, homotopy theory and more Andre Joyal
[not found] ` <B3C24EA955FF0C4EA14658997CD3E25E370F57F6@CAHIER.gst.uqam.ca>
[not found] ` <B3C24EA955FF0C4EA14658997CD3E25E370F57F8@CAHIER.gst.uqam.ca>
2010-05-13 6:56 ` calculus, homotopy theory and more (corrected) Michael Batanin
[not found] ` <B3C24EA955FF0C4EA14658997CD3E25E370F57FE@CAHIER.gst.uqam.ca>
2010-05-13 22:59 ` Michael Batanin
[not found] ` <4BEC846B.5050000@ics.mq.edu.au>
2010-05-14 2:53 ` Andre Joyal
2010-05-11 8:28 ` bilax_monoidal_functors?= Michael Batanin
2010-05-12 3:02 ` bilax_monoidal_functors?= Toby Bartels
2010-05-13 23:09 ` bilax_monoidal_functors?= Michael Batanin
2010-05-15 16:05 ` terminology Joyal, André
[not found] ` <4BEC8698.3090408@ics.mq.edu.au>
2010-05-14 18:41 ` bilax_monoidal_functors? Toby Bartels
2010-05-15 16:54 ` bilax_monoidal_functors Jeff Egger
2010-05-14 14:34 ` bilax_monoidal_functors Michael Shulman
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2010-05-08 1:05 bilax monoidal functors David Yetter
2010-05-10 16:14 ` bilax_monoidal_functors?= Andre Joyal
2010-05-16 23:57 ` bilax_monoidal_functors?= Richard Garner
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=E1OBEI2-0000mS-7K@mailserv.mta.ca \
--to=joyal.andre@uqam.ca \
--cc=categories@mta.ca \
--cc=john.c.baez@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).