Jan
29 |
comment |
Lattice-ordered commutative monoids
That's fine; thanks for the links. |
Jan
29 |
comment |
Lattice-ordered commutative monoids
Sounds interesting, but Todd, that link no longer works. Can you provide another? |
Jan
26 |
revised |
Rings in which every non-unit is a zero divisor
added 84 characters in body |
Jan
26 |
awarded | Necromancer |
Jan
4 |
revised |
Does every bicategory have a “delaxing object”?
deleted 67 characters in body |
Jan
4 |
accepted | Does every bicategory have a “delaxing object”? |
Jan
3 |
revised |
Does every bicategory have a “delaxing object”?
added 24 characters in body |
Jan
3 |
asked | Does every bicategory have a “delaxing object”? |
Nov
5 |
revised |
Rings in which every non-unit is a zero divisor
added 15 characters in body |
Nov
4 |
answered | Rings in which every non-unit is a zero divisor |
Sep
29 |
comment |
How (if at all) does category theory deal with situations where the usual notion of isomorphism isn't right?
But remember, I want to understand isomorphisms as "corresponding to" natural isomorphisms between $\mathrm{Hom}(X,−)$ and $\mathrm{Hom}(Y,−)$. I want to not have to choose them. So suppose $\mathbf{C}$ is an $\mathcal{M}$-category. Then, from the perspective of hom-functors, how can we justify the idea that an "isomorphism" $X \rightarrow Y$ is the same as a "tight isomorphism" $X \rightarrow Y$? |
Sep
29 |
comment |
How (if at all) does category theory deal with situations where the usual notion of isomorphism isn't right?
@FinnLawler, how does enriching in $\mathbf{SDS}$ ensure that the isomorphisms are the "correct" ones? |
Sep
29 |
comment |
How (if at all) does category theory deal with situations where the usual notion of isomorphism isn't right?
How does enriching in $\mathbf{SDS}$ ensure that the isomorphisms are the "correct" ones? |
Sep
29 |
asked | How (if at all) does category theory deal with situations where the usual notion of isomorphism isn't right? |
Sep
25 |
comment |
Are these Two Definitions of Quadratic Form (Algebraic, Topological) Related to Each Other?
Woah! Now that's what I call an answer :) |
Sep
20 |
awarded | Nice Question |
Aug
30 |
awarded | Yearling |
Aug
23 |
comment |
Generalizing disjointness
@DominicvanderZypen, thanks for the kind words :) |
Aug
22 |
revised |
Does this notion of “$\mathcal{F}$-digraph” appear in the literature?
added 1 character in body |
Aug
22 |
revised |
Does this notion of “$\mathcal{F}$-digraph” appear in the literature?
added 6 characters in body |