From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.science.mathematics.categories/5802 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Michael Shulman Newsgroups: gmane.science.mathematics.categories Subject: Re: bilax_monoidal_functors Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 09:34:22 -0500 Message-ID: References: Reply-To: Michael Shulman NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1273945315 12848 80.91.229.12 (15 May 2010 17:41:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 15 May 2010 17:41:55 +0000 (UTC) To: Michael Batanin Original-X-From: categories@mta.ca Sat May 15 19:41:53 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 1ODLN2-0005k6-L3 for gsmc-categories@m.gmane.org; Sat, 15 May 2010 19:41:52 +0200 Original-Received: from Majordom by mailserv.mta.ca with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1ODKqU-00067V-Ll for categories-list@mta.ca; Sat, 15 May 2010 14:08:14 -0300 Original-Sender: categories@mta.ca Precedence: bulk Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.science.mathematics.categories:5802 Archived-At: On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 6:09 PM, Michael Batanin wrote: > Concerning n-braided categories versus (n+1)-fold categories. Yes, I > would be happy to use (n+1)-fold terminology but it also clashes with > iterated monoidal categories of BFSW as I said. No one has suggested "(n+1)-fold monoidal" categories for that very reason. The terminology being suggested is "(n+1)-tuply monoidal." Mike [For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]