Talk:Enriched category

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] rewrite, now merge?

Merged from Talk:Enriched functor, now a redirect to here.

I've just rewritten the article. No offense to Clotito (talk • contribs) intended, but the article we had before was completely incomprehensible. The article is nothing but a definition though (both before and after the rewrite) and I think it should probably be merged into enriched category. Any opinions? Is anyone watching this article? -lethe ^{talk +} 01:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I mean, we also have enriched-category-theoretic definitions for natural transformations. Do we give an independent article to every enriched-category analogue of a category-theoretic concept? -lethe ^{talk +} 14:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] inconsistent notatoin

Now that I've merged, I see that I've introduced an unfortunate inconsistency in the notation. In the functors section, objects are denoted with miniscule a,b in contrast to the majuscule A,B in the rest of the article. Hom-objects are denoted C(a,b), instead of Hom(A,B) (which might prefer to be written Hom_C(A,B) in the functor section). Do you think this is bad enough to merit redoing the diagrams? Probably so. -lethe ^{talk +} 18:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)