meta user
network profile
| bio | website | cs.bham.ac.uk/~udr |
|---|---|---|
| location | Birmingham | |
| age | ||
| visits | member for | 1 year, 1 month |
| seen | 2 days ago | |
| stats | profile views | 62 |
Professor of Computer Science, with research interests in Programming Languages and Theory of Programming.
My profiles on Theoretical Computer Science, Computer Science, Mathematics, Stackoverflow, and Superuser.
Also on Programmers, where I am shooting for a negative rating (if such a thing is possible)!
|
Aug 26 |
answered | Universal property of tensor product |
|
Aug 26 |
awarded | Editor |
|
Aug 26 |
revised |
Motivation for Tensor Product Changed a link |
|
Aug 26 |
answered | Motivation for Tensor Product |
|
Aug 25 |
comment |
Equality of two notions of tensor products over a commutative ring It is not clear what you are saying. There are two classes of maps being talked about, and each of them has a "universal element" in your terminology. They have no reason to be isomorphic just by virtue of being "universal" (in their own class). |
|
Aug 25 |
awarded | Tag Editor |
|
Aug 25 |
revised |
category-theory wiki description Added a link to nLab |
|
Aug 25 |
suggested | suggested edit on category-theory tag wiki |
|
Aug 25 |
answered | Terminal objects and pullbacks |
|
Aug 24 |
awarded | Critic |
|
Aug 24 |
comment |
Mathematical notation for computer science There is no single piece of notation that is used in Computer Science, and it is also unlikely that you will find it all in one place. Depending on the subject area you are looking at, you would need to find perhaps a graduate text book on the subject to get all the background you need. |
|
Jul 7 |
answered | Why do books titled “Abstract Algebra” mostly deal with groups/rings/fields? |
|
Jul 7 |
awarded | Teacher |
|
Jul 7 |
answered | Why the terminology “monoid”? |
|
Apr 17 |
comment |
Why bifunctors? @ZhenLin. Yes, I see that now. However, note that nobody thought of calling natural transformations "binatural transformations". Occam's razor should win eventually. |
|
Apr 17 |
comment |
Why bifunctors? Ok, I guess that is a reasonable explanation. I was under the mistaken assumption that the morphism-bimorphism distinction is only made when there is a product and a separate tensor product, because there would then be a real need to distinguish between the two concepts. You are saying that the "bimorphism" terminology can be used whenever there is a closed symmetric monoidal structure. |
|
Apr 17 |
awarded | Scholar |
|
Apr 17 |
accepted | Why bifunctors? |
|
Apr 17 |
comment |
Why bifunctors? @dtldarek. Yes, that analogy would make sense. In the same way that the tensor product may be seen as an "artificial" construction to make bilinear transformations look linear, one might regard dual category as an artificial construction to make mixed variant functors look functorial. However, the "bifunctor" term is used even when there is no mixed variance. |
|
Apr 17 |
comment |
Why bifunctors? But my understanding is that bilinear maps are not linear maps or vice versa. So, there you do need different terms. |
