Timeline for How to get by with only functorial cylindrical objects?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 9, 2022 at 20:46 | history | edited | Arshak Aivazian | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 56 characters in body
|
| Aug 7, 2022 at 22:09 | history | became hot network question | |||
| Aug 7, 2022 at 18:05 | answer | added | Mike Shulman | timeline score: 8 | |
| Aug 7, 2022 at 16:10 | comment | added | Arshak Aivazian | By functorial cylindrical object I mean the cylindrical object resulting from the factorization of the codiagonal map. I want to fix it as the meaning of the word cylinder, in particular, it is unique (and functorial), yes. But no other choice (once and for all) of a cylindrical object also seems natural to me. | |
| Aug 7, 2022 at 14:53 | comment | added | Zhen Lin | It seems to me your real objection is not non-functoriality but rather non-uniqueness. Put it another way, it sounds to me you want to find a way to choose just one cylinder object (for each object) once and for all. I think this is not always possible. Certainly standard practice in model category theory is to allow oneself to choose ad hoc cylinder objects as required for the argument. | |
| Aug 7, 2022 at 14:29 | history | edited | YCor |
edited tags
|
|
| Aug 7, 2022 at 14:22 | history | edited | Arshak Aivazian | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 2 characters in body
|
| Aug 7, 2022 at 14:13 | history | edited | Arshak Aivazian | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 5 characters in body
|
| Aug 7, 2022 at 14:07 | history | asked | Arshak Aivazian | CC BY-SA 4.0 |