On Thu, 1 Mar 2007, John Baez wrote:
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!
You are completely right, of course - but one thing was clear from the start: naming a structure from the notation used is rarely a smart move; instead one should try to capture the essence of the structure in the name. (For that reason, "star-categories" isn't a whole lot better than "dagger-categories", though admittedly, it's hard to think of a worse name! However, "star-categories" is likely to make folks think "dagger = star", and that would be unhelpful. That is probably partially why getting a good name was tricky - after all, "dagger- categories" sounds like the act of a desparate person failing to come up with a good name.) But by now, too many folks are probably unwilling to change (and there isn't really an obvious better name anyway), and their collegues and students will probably follow suit, making a name revision even less likely. Pity though ... -= rags =- -- <rags@math.mcgill.ca> <www.math.mcgill.ca/rags>