You're reading the public-facing archive of the Category Theory Zulip server.
To join the server you need an invite. Anybody can get an invite by contacting Matteo Capucci at name dot surname at gmail dot com.
For all things related to this archive refer to the same person.
Daniel Geisler (May 08 2020 at 18:02):My current understanding is that a significant number of terms in CT have been repurposed from technical English. Am I correct?
sarahzrf (May 08 2020 at 18:03):like what?
sarahzrf (May 08 2020 at 18:04):nothing occurs to me off the top of my head, but i'm not sure
sarahzrf (May 08 2020 at 18:04):oh, from—i misread it as for, ha
Matteo Capucci (he/him) (May 13 2020 at 07:10)::thinking: Technical like mathematical or something else?
Morgan Rogers (he/him) (May 13 2020 at 10:21):Daniel Geisler said:
My current understanding is that a significant number of terms in CT have been repurposed from technical English. Am I correct?
Not necessarily technical. Many of the terms in sheaf theory come from wheat :upside_down:
But generally speaking it serves mathematics well to use obscure words for familiar concepts to describe mathematical objects, for the simple reason that their obscurity avoids confusion of the technical intended meaning with the common meaning (while the latter is relevant since it hopefully provides intuition for the technical meaning). Terms like "supine" and "prone" which respectively mean 'upright' and 'lying down', are used by Johnstone to distinguish the vertical and horizontal components of morphisms in fibrations from alternative kinds of vertical/horizontal morphisms.
Daniel Geisler (May 13 2020 at 14:46):It blew my mind to realize that "composite" in CT is more abstract and versatile than what I'm used to.
Morgan Rogers (he/him) (May 13 2020 at 14:58):In what sense?
Daniel Geisler (May 13 2020 at 15:30):Instead of composite being related to functions from classical mathematics, it was most like a piece of computer code.
sarahzrf (May 13 2020 at 15:37):how?
Morgan Rogers (he/him) (May 13 2020 at 15:39):I don't know why I asked the question I did. It's the "not every morphism is a function" generalisation