Talk:Category theory/Related Articles: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Peter Lyall Easthope
m (Question about examples.)
 
imported>Jitse Niesen
(Discussion continued at Talk:Category theory#Examples)
 
(2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
== Examples ==
== Examples ==


Jitse,
Jitse & others,
I notice that under Examples we now have "Category of sets" and "Set".
I notice that under Examples we now have "Category of sets" and "Set".
By "Set" do you mean <b>Set</b>, the Category of sets? If so it
<b>Set</b>, in boldface, is the name for the Category of sets. On the
should be in boldface and "Category of sets" should be deleted.   
other hand, a set alone is not a category.  So the first two items would
Likewise for "Category of schemes" and "Scheme".
properly be stated as one example of a category.  Likewise for "Category  
of schemes" and "Scheme". The list of examples needs tidying.<br>
Regards,        ... [[User:Peter Lyall Easthope|Peter Lyall Easthope]] 19:02, 1 September 2008 (CDT)
Regards,        ... [[User:Peter Lyall Easthope|Peter Lyall Easthope]] 19:02, 1 September 2008 (CDT)
:Discussion continued at [[Talk:Category theory#Examples]]. -- [[User:Jitse Niesen|Jitse Niesen]] 06:05, 21 September 2008 (CDT)

Latest revision as of 05:05, 21 September 2008

Examples

Jitse & others, I notice that under Examples we now have "Category of sets" and "Set". Set, in boldface, is the name for the Category of sets. On the other hand, a set alone is not a category. So the first two items would properly be stated as one example of a category. Likewise for "Category of schemes" and "Scheme". The list of examples needs tidying.
Regards, ... Peter Lyall Easthope 19:02, 1 September 2008 (CDT)

Discussion continued at Talk:Category theory#Examples. -- Jitse Niesen 06:05, 21 September 2008 (CDT)