meta user
network profile
| bio | website | |
|---|---|---|
| location | ||
| age | 24 | |
| visits | member for | 1 year, 10 months |
| seen | 2 days ago | |
| stats | profile views | 117 |
|
Aug 22 |
revised |
Specifying morphisms of slice categories fibrewise. edited body |
|
Aug 22 |
comment |
Specifying morphisms of slice categories fibrewise. Very nice writeup, thanks! I figured the statement couldn't be true (in general). Now I just need to figure out what they mean by fibrewise :) |
|
Aug 22 |
accepted | Specifying morphisms of slice categories fibrewise. |
|
Aug 22 |
asked | Specifying morphisms of slice categories fibrewise. |
|
Jul 25 |
comment |
How to define an action of an algebra on a set? As far as I can see you need additional operations on the collection of endomorphisms of your sets. So perhaps if you passed from Sets to some enriched category? I can't say I can think of any interesting example of such a structure though, and it seems quite asymmetric. I'm wondering if the notion of a group action shouldn't be considered more of a construction on sets than on groups, arising due to the existence of a canonical group structure on the set of automorphisms of a set (or more generally the objects of a category). |
|
Jul 23 |
comment |
What kind of structure are exponentials in their “contravariant argument” There's a pretty good overview in nLab as well: ncatlab.org/nlab/show/extranatural+transformation |
|
Jul 23 |
accepted | What kind of structure are exponentials in their “contravariant argument” |
|
Jul 23 |
asked | What kind of structure are exponentials in their “contravariant argument” |
|
Jul 21 |
comment |
What is the name of this construction? I'd just call them isomorphic (it should generally be obvious that it is with respect to the relevant arrow category). |
|
Jul 19 |
answered | DFA and NFA equivalent language |
|
Jul 19 |
awarded | Yearling |
|
Jul 19 |
comment |
Topological spaces as model-theoretic structures — definitions? While not an answer it might still be interesting to note that can also do much topology by passing to the open-set lattice "by itself" (cf. stone duality). Basically this means studying complete Hayting algebras which, while still not given by a first order theory, do look much more algebraic. Another option, used in constructive mathematics, is to study the notion of a "covering relations" (cf. formal topology), which might also give an idea what a theory of topological spaces might look like. |
|
Jul 10 |
revised |
Software for organising mathematics added 301 characters in body |
|
Jul 10 |
comment |
Software for organising mathematics @deoxygerbe Pretty much the same issue I have (though I'd also like some general way to manage relations between things in this collection), something like this would be the first reason ever for me to actually want a tablet. |
|
Jul 10 |
revised |
Software for organising mathematics added 186 characters in body |
|
Jul 10 |
comment |
Software for organising mathematics @ThomasRot Thanks (I've only seen the name before, never used the package, I'll definitely check it out), the issue of TikZ was mostly a small side note though :) |
|
Jul 10 |
asked | Software for organising mathematics |
|
Sep 14 |
answered | Software for testing relational algebra |
|
Sep 14 |
comment |
Functors preserving (commuting with) exponentials Thanks, I didn't think to search for such a thing. Also the fact that the n-lab page doesn't seem to mention any names for functors preserving just the exponentials suggests, to me, that no such established name exist (thus motivation the "accept"). |
|
Sep 14 |
accepted | Functors preserving (commuting with) exponentials |
