Timeline for why haven't certain well-researched classes of mathematical object been framed by category theory?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 24, 2010 at 0:06 | comment | added | Johannes Hahn | +1 for the Borg reference. I often have the fealing, category theory is assimilating the rest of the mathematical galaxy. ;-) | |
| Apr 23, 2010 at 21:14 | comment | added | Dan Piponi | I notice you made a point of mentioning convergence. On the other hand, if you consider formal series without regard to convergence, then we have some nice category theory going on. For a long time, combinatorics resisted a categorical treatment, but then along came combinatorial species, and lots of interesting combinatorial structures turned out to be functors. And at that point, many properties of formal power series, considered as generating functions, suddenly acquired category theoretical meaning. Resistance is futile. :-) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combinatorial_species | |
| Apr 23, 2010 at 20:45 | comment | added | graveolensa | the link doesn't seem to be working right. The full url is here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_acceleration | |
| Apr 23, 2010 at 20:41 | comment | added | graveolensa | There are morphisms between different series of a given type -- there are variety of <a href="en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_acceleration">series transformations</a>, such as Eulerian series acceleration, there's scalar multiplication, which turns one given series into another, and there's the equivalence class of all series that sum to the same thing (pi and e formulas for instance.) | |
| Apr 23, 2010 at 17:52 | history | answered | Pete L. Clark | CC BY-SA 2.5 |