Timeline for Standard name of "atomic morphisms"?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 4, 2010 at 22:31 | comment | added | David E Speyer | Most poset people don't use category theoretic language. However, they certainly say that the pair (x,y) is a cover, so I think it is fair game to say that x -> y is a cover. | |
| Jan 4, 2010 at 16:49 | comment | added | S. Carnahan♦ | I have also seen the term "immediate successor" (but I'm not a poset person). | |
| Jan 4, 2010 at 15:50 | comment | added | Hans-Peter Stricker | Not consciously. | |
| Jan 4, 2010 at 15:44 | comment | added | Pete L. Clark | Right, and an atom in a Boolean algebra is an element which covers 0. Is that the origin of the terminology? | |
| Jan 4, 2010 at 15:19 | history | answered | Reid Barton | CC BY-SA 2.5 |