Timeline for What are trivial objects, in general?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 12, 2017 at 3:21 | review | Close votes | |||
| Oct 12, 2017 at 12:02 | |||||
| Feb 23, 2014 at 21:35 | comment | added | Fernando Muro | initial + final? | |
| Feb 23, 2014 at 21:34 | answer | added | Qiaochu Yuan | timeline score: 4 | |
| Feb 21, 2014 at 8:04 | comment | added | jmc | Sometimes it is also pretty ambiguous. I think a lot of people call a representation $G \to \mathrm{Aut}(V)$ trivial as soon as $G$ acts trivial (the image of the map is $\{\mathrm{id}_{V}\}$). However, in light of what you say, one should only call the $0$-dimensional representation trivial. (I admit that I sometimes get confused which of the two 'trivials' is meant, when someone concludes that a particular representation is trivial.) | |
| Feb 21, 2014 at 6:19 | comment | added | Daniel Hast | Can't "trivial proofs and theorems" be considered trivial objects in a suitable category? I don't know the technical details very well, but my intuitive understanding is that some construction related to syntactic categories leads to a notion of theorems or proofs as objects/morphisms in a category, in which there should be trivial objects (such as theorems with empty conclusion or conclusion identical to a hypothesis). | |
| Feb 21, 2014 at 6:06 | comment | added | Asaf Karagila♦ | Objects whose existence is left as an exercise to the reader. :-) | |
| Feb 21, 2014 at 3:38 | review | First posts | |||
| Feb 21, 2014 at 5:07 | |||||
| Feb 21, 2014 at 3:37 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Todd Trimble | ||
| Feb 21, 2014 at 3:19 | history | asked | William D'Alessandro | CC BY-SA 3.0 |