From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.science.mathematics.categories/5777 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Jeff Egger Newsgroups: gmane.science.mathematics.categories Subject: Re: autonomous terminology: WAS: bilax monoidal functors Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 10:40:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: References: Reply-To: Jeff Egger NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1273539898 18135 80.91.229.12 (11 May 2010 01:04:58 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 01:04:58 +0000 (UTC) To: categories , Dusko Pavlovic Original-X-From: categories@mta.ca Tue May 11 03:04:57 2010 connect(): No such file or directory Return-path: Envelope-to: gsmc-categories@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mailserv.mta.ca ([138.73.1.1]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OBdu2-0001L2-8z for gsmc-categories@m.gmane.org; Tue, 11 May 2010 03:04:54 +0200 Original-Received: from Majordom by mailserv.mta.ca with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1OBdGa-0002Ut-26 for categories-list@mta.ca; Mon, 10 May 2010 21:24:08 -0300 In-Reply-To: Original-Sender: categories@mta.ca Precedence: bulk Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.science.mathematics.categories:5777 Archived-At: Hi Dusko, > i am reluctant call them dagger star autonomous categories, > because it is a mouthful. Perhaps it's a symptom of growing up in a country where "Kangiqsualujjuaq" is considered a perfectly acceptable name for a village, but I don't think that "dagger star- autonomous" is a mouthful. It's only one syllable longer than "sesquipedalian", and one less than "linearly distributive", neither of which I would hesitate to use in day-to-day conversation, should the occasion arise. It even scans nicely. Moreover, it communicates something (at least to me); for better or worse, both "dagger" and "star-autonomous" are both established terms, and I can see how they might be combined. Agglutination, though often mocked, is often effective. > so now, what should we call those "dagger star autonomous > categories" if > we don't want to type 30 characters each time we mention > them? One of the many curious features of the English language is that adjectives are never inflected; assuming you use TeX, why not take advantage of this fact in your source code? \def\dsa{dagger star-autonomous} > peter suggests DSA-categories. If you're publishing in a print journal, or a conference proceedings with a hard page-limit, then that seems sensible (though I'd drop the hyphen). Otherwise, do us all a favour and stick to the long form: pixels are cheap, as editors of TAC are wont to say. > (maybe someone will abbreviate them to D-categories...) What's the point of that? D-category could stand for (just plain old) dagger category, or differential category, or any number of other things. But maybe someone some day will \def\dsa{Pavlovic}. Cheers, Jeff. [For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]