From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.science.mathematics.categories/782 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: James Stasheff Newsgroups: gmane.science.mathematics.categories Subject: Re: co- Date: Sat, 4 Jul 1998 10:07:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1241017177 27350 80.91.229.2 (29 Apr 2009 14:59:37 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 14:59:37 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Paul Taylor , categories@mta.ca To: John R Isbell Original-X-From: cat-dist Sat Jul 4 14:51:55 1998 Original-Received: (from Majordom@localhost) by mailserv.mta.ca (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA19162 for categories-list; Sat, 4 Jul 1998 14:14:38 -0300 (ADT) X-Authentication-Warning: mailserv.mta.ca: Majordom set sender to cat-dist@mta.ca using -f In-Reply-To: Original-Sender: cat-dist@mta.ca Precedence: bulk Original-Lines: 63 Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.science.mathematics.categories:782 Archived-At: I do not understand (1 bis) Of course not covariant-contravariant. Surely that is what Steenrod had in mind (subconsciously)? Remember that covariant-contravariant for diff forms wass originally referring to change of coordiates rather than maps. ************************************************************ Until August 10, 1998, I am on leave from UNC and am at the University of Pennsylvania Jim Stasheff jds@math.upenn.edu 146 Woodland Dr Lansdale PA 19446 (215)822-6707 Jim Stasheff jds@math.unc.edu Math-UNC (919)-962-9607 Chapel Hill NC FAX:(919)-962-2568 27599-3250 On Fri, 3 Jul 1998, John R Isbell wrote: > > On Fri, 3 Jul 1998, Paul Taylor wrote: > > > What are the origins of the co- prefix, as in coproduct, coequaliser ..., > > and who established their use? > > > > Has anybody ever thought through and written down any guidelines on > > which of a pair of dual concepts is co-? > > > > Who is reponsible for dropping this prefix from cofinal? > > (A mistake, IMHO). > > > > Paul > > > Fragments: (1) Origin, I don't know, but surely cohomology > is where it started. The term was used very early, 1937 I think, > by Norman Steenrod in a paper mainly on universal coefficient > theorems. > (2) The idea of putting forward some such > guidelines was seriously discussed at La Jolla 1965, and I > should say that Sammy Eilenberg killed it single-handed. His > main point was that anything we Americans might propose would > be absolutely unacceptable in Paris. Verdier was the only > Frenchman present; he was well thought of but very young. > (1 bis) Of course not covariant-contravariant. > (3) I'm not sure what "A mistake IMHO" means. > Of course, the "co" in cofinal is genetically "con" of > congress, concatenation. I don't have nice illustrations of > antecedents of co-homology but it is not 'together' like in > congress & concatenation. But it is dropped in categorical > contexts because it is a distracting "co". > John Isbell > >