Ben Steffan

Is it just "you take the functors in the other direction obtained from Cartesian straightening and then unravel the definitions to show that these are adjoint?"

@Thorgott I'm intrigued. How do you get that the objects of the subcategory are left adjoints?

but at the same time I do not envy you over the end-of-thesis stress

I believe in you :)

that's not a lot :/

oh, ok

how much time do you have left on the thesis?

I guess that makes sense

huh

bordism is so strange

but $(\infty, \infty)$-categories??

ah, what else

@Thorgott that sounds... very scary

:o

what's your thesis' topic?

not that that necessarily means much but

relative to me at least you seem to understand a lot :)

this is just absurd

I do not understand how people do $\infty$-category theory at the research level

yeah :'(

I thought it was this one but apparently not

Moser-Rasekh-Rovelli

...this is the exact paper I pulled up lol

apparently there's a paper out there that does it this way, for $(\infty, n)$-categories

the model independent proof is still a lot of work

more precisely, apparently if you could produce the yoneda embedding in some other way, then you could have a nicer proof

oh, on that note: I learned today that apparently you can proof straightening/unstraightening model-independently if you already know it for anima

happens to the best of us

That's alright, that's alright :)

but in the end the thing they were asking about is just strange, independent of that

If they had a solid understanding of the concept of $\infty$ then the discussion would probably have been somewhat shorter

That's why this discussion came about in the first place

And maple has some concept of infinity like that, and allows you to operate on it, apparently?

@GroveRover But this is coming from maple?

@XanderHenderson what kind of show? standup comedy?

it has been 0 days since wheel theory has been mentioned in this chatroom

ducks

to some extent.

@GroveRover I literally just told you you can.

...

I'm telling you that it is not. Look up, say, the extended real line.

As for extending operations to it, things like $c \cdot \infty = \infty$ when $c > 0$ are fairly benign and commonplace

It does exist in formal mathematics, even if it is not an element of the real line.

sure, but why are you telling me this

whether this is the intended semantics in maple or not is impossible to say for an outsider

again, I find positing $5 = 0 \cdot \infty$ bizarre, but it is a definition I could technically make

there's no generally agreed upon meaning of the expression $0 \cdot \infty$, so asking whether it equals some value is not a mathematical question

as I pointed out above, this question is not well-posed

I'm sure there's some kind of maple forum where you could ask, no?

I have no idea whether it is a bug