categories - Category Theory list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Vaughan Pratt <pratt@cs.stanford.edu>
To: Categories List <categories@mta.ca>
Subject: Re: opposite category
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2017 18:20:01 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <E1dtI6V-0000Ta-OS@mlist.mta.ca> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <E1dsucr-0002B6-7j@mlist.mta.ca>

Well, one could look to the various power set functors for guidance there.

When you refer to the contravariant power set functor, it may be
contrary but it's reliably so and people know what you mean.

But "the" covariant power set functor??? What's that??? It's like Trump:
one day he's agreeing with the Elephants, the next with the Scientific
Consensus.

If there are more than two covariant power set functors maybe we'll see
yet another side of Trump, perhaps a side from another dimension.

Give me good old reliable contravariant.???? Mind the pence and the
pounding will take care of itself.

Oh but wait, there's profunctors,?? ??: A' x B --> V.???? Which way do /they
/go? The Elephant
<https://www.amazon.com/Sketches-Elephant-Theory-Compendium-Oxford/dp/019852496X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1505521975&sr=8-1&keywords=sketches+of+an+elephant>
(kindle edition $4.99
<https://www.amazon.com/Draw-Animals-Step-Step-Elephants-ebook/dp/B007WKEMBE/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1505522093&sr=8-4>)
says they go from A to B.?? The Consensus, being a bunch of Deniers, says
("bunch" is singular) they go from B to A.

Who to believe??? It's enough to make anyone lose their composure. (Oh
but wait, there's left Kan extensions.)

Vaughan

PS?? How many covariant power set functors according to the Elephant???
Does every element of ?? get one?

On 09/14/17 8:58 AM, Peter Selinger wrote:
> Robert Pare wrote:
>> He said there may come a time when we have to consider covariant
>> functors as contravariant ones on the opposite category.
> This anecdote seems to have prompted a few posts about opposite
> categories, but I thought the point of the original anecdote was that
> Fred said that *covariant* functors should be considered as
> contravariant functors on the opposite category, i.e., that he
> considered contravariant functors to be the more fundamental concept.
> An interesting thought, and obviously tongue-in-cheek.
>
> -- Peter
>

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


  parent reply	other threads:[~2017-09-16  1:20 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <1EE29452-3443-447D-BCDE-0A76B4F0562D@dal.ca>
2017-09-06 16:51 ` Fred Robert Pare
2017-09-07  0:42   ` Fred Ross Street
2017-09-14 15:58   ` opposite category Peter Selinger
2017-09-15 18:23     ` Joachim Kock
2017-09-16  1:20     ` Vaughan Pratt [this message]
2017-09-16 15:44     ` Joyal, André

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=E1dtI6V-0000Ta-OS@mlist.mta.ca \
    --to=pratt@cs.stanford.edu \
    --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).