Timeline for What are $n$-poset?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 19, 2011 at 0:26 | comment | added | Mike Shulman | Yes, arguably the term ought to be "n-preorder"! | |
| Oct 13, 2011 at 12:48 | vote | accept | Giorgio Mossa | ||
| Oct 13, 2011 at 12:48 | comment | added | Giorgio Mossa | I think now I get it: the problem was that I didn't recognize the $(0,1)$-categories as poset because I was used to see poset in strict form: that is categories in which every pair of equivalent morphisms are equal. With this limitation $(n-1,n)$-categories seemed more like a generalization of preorder than poset, but now I see, $n$-poset are a weak higher dimensional version of poset. Thanks a lot. | |
| Oct 12, 2011 at 20:44 | history | edited | Urs Schreiber | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Oct 12, 2011 at 20:38 | comment | added | Toby Bartels | That's why saying "the space of choices of equivalences between them is contractible" amounts to the same as "there is just one equivalence between them". | |
| Oct 12, 2011 at 20:37 | comment | added | Toby Bartels | Note also that all of this "is" is up to equivalence (of, in general, $\infty$-categories). On the $n$Lab, that's the default anyway; there might be two different definitions of the same term, but as long as they're equivalent in this weak sense, then they're simply different ways to look at the same thing. | |
| Oct 12, 2011 at 20:29 | history | answered | Urs Schreiber | CC BY-SA 3.0 |