Re: terminology for simplicial sets

["Eduardo J. Dubuc" <edubuc@dm.uba.ar>]

Dear Peter (which one ?)

After the recent discussions on "evil", I hope we all realized that to have a
"descriptive name" is very often conflictive (and evil !!). I would say also
that it is always misleading.

Welcome Peter May for such a simple and brief name,
                   "Property A" is perfect !!, why hoping for something else ?.

Well, seriously, very often in mathematical practice "descriptive" names are
not convenient because there is no name that adapts really to the property or
concept. In that case, it is much better to use a "neutral" non descriptive
name, even just a letter or a meaningles combination of 2 or 3 letters and
numbers (may be related to the property, like AB5 for example).

I propose the following:

Call the property of being invariant under equivalence of categories

property IEC, and instead of "evil" use "not IEC".

Greetings to all   e.j.

Prof. Peter Johnstone wrote:
  > Dear Peter,
  >
  > Many thanks. Naturally, I'd been hoping that it might have a more
  > descriptive name than "Property A", but if that is what it's called ...
  >
  > The reason I got interested in it: if you consider the total category
  > of the discrete fibration (over the simplicial category Delta)
  > corresponding to a given simplicial set, the full subcategory
  > whose objects are the non-degenerate simplices is reflective
  > iff Property A holds.
  >
  > Peter
  >

[For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]