Timeline for Is there an accepted definition of $(\infty,\infty)$ category?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 23, 2013 at 19:57 | comment | added | Mike Shulman | The usual definition of strict $\infty$-category does not seem to me to really leave room for an "inductive" definition of equivalences, and the same for plenty of the other proposed definitions of weak $\infty$-category, such as Batanin's. It's only the approach via the $(\infty,n)$-world, where there is a separately specified collection of "equivalences", that leaves room for a nontrivial "inductive" notion of equivalence that differs from the coinductive one. Or did you have something else in mind? | |
| Jun 25, 2013 at 5:15 | history | edited | Charles Rezk | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
one word change
|
| Jun 23, 2013 at 14:30 | comment | added | Charles Rezk | Theo, I'd go with "there are at least two". But that's not the final word on the subject. | |
| Jun 22, 2013 at 21:54 | comment | added | Theo Johnson-Freyd | Awesome. I meant to pose the same question to you as I posed to Chris a couple days ago, but somehow only asked it once. Should I take your answer to be "No, there is not a consensus definition of $(\infty,\infty)$-category, but rather there are two best definitions."? Or just that there are at least two? | |
| Jun 18, 2013 at 22:09 | history | edited | Ricardo Andrade | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Jun 18, 2013 at 16:01 | history | answered | Charles Rezk | CC BY-SA 3.0 |