On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 09:21:55AM +0000, V. Schmitt wrote:
John Baez wrote:
by now there's enough literature using the term "dagger-categories" that the genie is out of the bottle.
Dear John, just my view: this is not a good argument.
It's not an argument - I'm just reporting on what I see. I don't really like the term "dagger-categories", and I gently tried to get people to stop using it, but it didn't work. They're already comfortable with it.
I do not know about these dagger categories though i read about the compact closed ones. So may be I miss the point but, if this is the case, why introducing a new terminology if the concepts are not? That just creates confusion.
I hope this is clear: "dagger-categories" are completely different from "compact closed categories". We need *some* term for them; we're just arguing about whether to call them "star-categories", "dagger-categories", or "categories with involution". I like "star-categories", because in analysis and quantum topology the special case of "C*-categories" is very important. But, I doubt we'll reach any sort of agreement! Best, jb