From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.science.mathematics.categories/5782 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Fred E.J. Linton" Newsgroups: gmane.science.mathematics.categories Subject: Re: bilax_monoidal_functors Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 21:04:53 -0400 Message-ID: Reply-To: "Fred E.J. Linton" NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1273625448 15674 80.91.229.12 (12 May 2010 00:50:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 00:50:48 +0000 (UTC) To: categories Original-X-From: categories@mta.ca Wed May 12 02:50:46 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 1OC09o-0001Qu-Kr for gsmc-categories@m.gmane.org; Wed, 12 May 2010 02:50:40 +0200 Original-Received: from Majordom by mailserv.mta.ca with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1OBzdr-0007S4-8r for categories-list@mta.ca; Tue, 11 May 2010 21:17:39 -0300 Original-Sender: categories@mta.ca Precedence: bulk Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.science.mathematics.categories:5782 Archived-At: Jeff Egger wrote, in part, > My objection to the phrase "autonomous category" (which > Dusko brought up) has less to do with defending Fred > Linton's original usage of that phrase than the fact > that "autonomous category" is a special case (and, from > one point of view, a rather uninteresting special case) > of "star-autonomous category", whereas it sounds like > "star-autonomous category" should mean an "autonomous > category" with some extra structure. (And, of course, > this once was the case, w.r.t. the older terminology.) > This is confusing; hence one term or the other should > be changed. I am, in fact, open to all suggestions, > though I cannot help but prefer that "star-autonomous" > be kept and "autonomous" changed. Without seeking to prolong the use of "autonomous" today, let me just say in my defense that, at the time I brought that term into use, I was thinking it was the sort of place-holder name that would, eventually, be replaced (as it has been) by something more appropriate. This was, as I recall, also the original motivation for the term "exact"; fortunately for its coiners, "exact" worked so well that it never did need to get replaced. "Autonomous," on the = other hand, was not nearly as felicitous a choice, and has long since been superceded -- I have no qualms about that, nor any regrets (all the fewer because, as I recall, I was at that time thinking only of symmetric closed monoidal categories V for which the Set-valued Hom functor V(E, -) = (E the monoidal unit object) was faithful :-) ). Cheers, -- Fred [For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]