Timeline for Lax universality for lax limits
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 12, 2010 at 15:47 | vote | accept | Alan Jeffrey | ||
| Nov 2, 2010 at 5:10 | comment | added | Mike Shulman | Re: weak vs lax: yes, that's one reason why "weak" is an unfortunate choice of word to mean "up to iso/equivalence" generally. But there's not much we can do about that, I think. | |
| Nov 2, 2010 at 1:53 | comment | added | Alan Jeffrey | Thanks for the links! Unfortunately, none of these naming schemes lend themselves to a name of the form adjective limit/colimit/product/pullback/etc. Perhaps "locally lax"? Or "univerally lax" to stress that it's the universality of the limit that's being made lax? I note that this is one of the places where the 1-category terminology and the 2-category terminology are in mild conflict: a weak limit weakens the universality of the limit, whereas a lax limit relaxes the cone. | |
| Nov 1, 2010 at 20:57 | history | answered | Finn Lawler | CC BY-SA 2.5 |