Paul Taylor <pt@doc.ic.ac.uk> writes,
Peter Freyd says,
Colin's candidate for "weak topos" is only missing one of the uniqueness conditions, so I would hesitate to use the term. How about "near topos"?
...
Are you, Peter, willing to propose a definitive meaning for "near" analogous to your (& Sammy & Sauders') meaning for "weak"?
...
Exactly what to weaken is not, a priori, a clear cut issue.
The prefix word "weak" is defined to mean "missing uniqueness", so it seems appropriate for Colin's work (or am I mistaken here?). The problem seems to be that there are degrees of "weak" imaginable. Why not provide an outside tag to identify the terminology? Colin should use "weak topos" throughout his own work; works by third persons should refer to "weak topos (as per McLarty)". ==============================================================================