From: selinger@mathstat.dal.ca (Peter Selinger)
To: categories@mta.ca (Categories List)
Subject: Re: terminology
Date: Sun, 16 May 2010 09:44:08 -0300 (ADT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <E1ODhYx-0001Hv-0t@mailserv.mta.ca> (raw)
I had written:
>
> My last comment is that, unlike what Jeff Egger claimed, "autonomous
> category" is not a special case of "*-autonomous category", because no
> symmetry is assumed in autonomous categories. Unless of course one
> first drops symmetry from the definition of *-autonomous categories,
> as Jeff has also suggested. As it stands, neither of "autonomous" and
> "*-autonomous" implies the other, which is perfectly fine in my
> opinion, since they are two different words.
I would like to clarify that Jeff himself did not say anything false,
because in the context in which he said it, he had in fact assumed the
non-symmetric definition of *-autonomous category (of [Barr 1995]).
Sorry if it sounded like I was accusing him.
My intention was only to point out that the statement "autonomous
categories are a special case of *-autonomous categories" cannot be
quoted out of context, because it is false under the original
definition of *-autonomous category that includes symmetry (of [Barr
1979]). Since it had already been quoted out of context when I wrote
the above, I just wanted to point out how the potential confusion.
I think this is a very apt illustration of what happens if a term with
an existing meaning is redefined to mean something else. Henceforth it
is impossible for anybody to use the term (with either meaning)
without first giving a definition. That's no problem in a math paper,
where definitions are usually given or cited anyway, and therefore
terminology is in principle arbitrary. But it does tend to hobble
everyday discussion.
-- Peter
P.S.: since I have a demonstrated ability to put my foot in my mouth,
I'd like to clarify that I am not accusing Mike Barr of anything
either. His 1995 paper is clearly entitled "Non-symmetric *-autonomous
categories", and the inside of the paper clearly explains the
distinction. It is only in subsequent use that any confusion arises.
The usual solution, of putting either (non-symmetric) or (symmetric)
in parentheses the first time the term is used, and omitting it for
subsequent uses, is perfectly adequate. I am very happy with the
statement "an autonomous category is a special case of a
(non-symmetric) *-autonomous category".
M. Barr (1979). "*-Autonomous Categories", Lectures Notes in
Mathematics 752. Springer.
M. Barr (1995). "Non-symmetric *-autonomous categories".
Theoretical Computer Science 139:115–130.
[For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]
next reply other threads:[~2010-05-16 12:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 64+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-05-16 12:44 Peter Selinger [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2017-02-11 20:42 Terminology Fred E.J. Linton
2017-02-14 8:48 ` Terminology Steve Vickers
[not found] ` <02568D97-0A72-4CA8-8900-BDE11E890890@cs.bham.ac.uk>
2017-02-14 9:39 ` Terminology Jean Benabou
2017-02-09 22:03 Terminology Andrée Ehresmann
2017-02-08 8:03 Terminology Jean Benabou
2017-02-08 16:34 ` Terminology Jirí Adámek
2017-02-10 1:42 ` Terminology George Janelidze
2017-02-08 21:40 ` Terminology Carsten Führmann
2017-02-09 11:31 ` Terminology Thomas Streicher
[not found] ` <20170208180636.18346065.28939.42961@rbccm.com>
2017-02-09 16:38 ` Terminology Jean Benabou
2017-02-11 15:07 ` Terminology Steve Vickers
2013-05-02 3:57 Terminology Fred E.J. Linton
2013-05-03 11:53 ` Terminology Robert Dawson
2013-05-02 3:57 Terminology Fred E.J. Linton
2013-04-30 1:20 Terminology Fred E.J. Linton
2013-04-24 17:13 Terminology Jean Bénabou
2013-04-24 23:04 ` Terminology David Roberts
2013-04-27 13:08 ` Terminology Thomas Streicher
[not found] ` <20130427130857.GC16801@mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de>
2013-04-28 3:49 ` Terminology Jean Bénabou
2013-04-28 22:47 ` Terminology Olivier Gerard
[not found] ` <557435A6-4568-4012-8C63-E031931F41FB@wanadoo.fr>
2013-04-28 14:17 ` Terminology Thomas Streicher
2013-04-29 20:05 ` Terminology Toby Bartels
2013-04-30 0:58 ` Terminology Peter May
2010-09-29 2:03 terminology Todd Trimble
2010-09-28 4:38 terminology Eduardo J. Dubuc
2010-05-27 18:31 terminology Colin McLarty
2010-05-19 10:38 Re terminology: Ronnie Brown
2010-05-20 7:58 ` soloviev
2010-05-20 19:53 ` terminology Eduardo J. Dubuc
[not found] ` <AANLkTikre9x4Qikw0mqOl1qZs9DDSkcBu3CXWA05OTQT@mail.gmail.com>
2010-05-21 17:00 ` Re terminology: Ronnie Brown
[not found] ` <B3C24EA955FF0C4EA14658997CD3E25E370F5827@CAHIER.gst.uqam.ca>
2010-05-22 21:43 ` terminology Ronnie Brown
[not found] ` <4BF84FF3.7060806@btinternet.com>
2010-05-22 22:44 ` terminology Joyal, André
2010-05-23 15:39 ` terminology Colin McLarty
2010-05-24 18:04 ` terminology Vaughan Pratt
2010-05-26 3:08 ` terminology Toby Bartels
2010-05-25 14:08 ` terminology John Baez
2010-05-26 8:03 ` terminology Reinhard Boerger
2010-05-25 19:39 ` terminology Colin McLarty
2010-05-29 21:47 ` terminology Toby Bartels
2010-05-30 19:15 ` terminology Thorsten Altenkirch
[not found] ` <A46C7965-B4E7-42E6-AE97-6C1D930AC878@cs.nott.ac.uk>
2010-05-30 20:51 ` terminology Toby Bartels
2010-06-01 7:39 ` terminology Thorsten Altenkirch
2010-06-01 13:33 ` terminology Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine
[not found] ` <7BF50141-7775-4D3C-A4AF-D543891666B9@cs.nott.ac.uk>
2010-06-01 18:22 ` terminology Toby Bartels
[not found] ` <AANLkTilG69hcX7ZV8zrLpQ_nf1pCmyktsnuE0RyJtQYF@mail.gmail.com>
2010-05-26 8:28 ` terminology John Baez
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
2010-05-08 3:27 RE : bilax monoidal functors John Baez
2010-05-10 18:16 ` bilax_monoidal_functors?= John Baez
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
2007-01-27 17:06 terminology wlawvere
2007-01-26 23:30 terminology Eduardo Dubuc
2005-12-30 1:16 terminology vs27
2005-12-29 19:09 terminology Nikita Danilov
2005-12-10 3:51 Terminology jean benabou
2005-12-21 20:04 ` Terminology Eduardo Dubuc
2005-12-26 19:47 ` terminology Vaughan Pratt
2005-12-29 23:17 ` terminology Eduardo Dubuc
2006-01-04 14:59 ` terminology Eduardo Dubuc
2003-10-17 15:19 terminology Marco Grandis
2003-10-16 21:39 terminology James Stasheff
2001-04-09 11:06 Terminology Krzysztof Worytkiewicz
2000-12-14 6:17 Terminology Max Kelly
[not found] <3a35cdd73a39f901@amyris.wanadoo.fr>
2000-12-13 11:10 ` Terminology Dr. P.T. Johnstone
2000-12-13 1:17 Terminology Steve Lack
2000-12-12 8:19 Terminology Jean Benabou
2000-01-28 12:02 terminology James Stasheff
2000-01-28 9:57 terminology Marco Grandis
2000-01-27 19:28 terminology James Stasheff
2000-01-27 21:04 ` terminology Paul Glenn
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=E1ODhYx-0001Hv-0t@mailserv.mta.ca \
--to=selinger@mathstat.dal.ca \
--cc=categories@mta.ca \
/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).