Talk:Category theory/Related Articles: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Peter Lyall Easthope m (→Examples: Restated to improve clarity.) |
imported>Peter Lyall Easthope m (→Examples: Clarified a little more.) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Jitse & others, | 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". | ||
<b>Set</b>, in boldface, is | <b>Set</b>, in boldface, is the name for the Category of sets. On the | ||
other hand, | 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 | properly be stated as one example of a category. Likewise for "Category | ||
of schemes" and "Scheme". The list of examples needs tidying.<br> | 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) | ||
Revision as of 22:23, 20 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)