Talk:Tannakian formalism

Broken link?[edit]

The external link in the Formal Definition section is currently not working. -- Walt Pohl (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 30 November 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 07:22, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tannakian category → Tannakian formalism – I think we need an article on this formalism, of which Tannaka–Krein duality is a special case. The notion of “Tannakiann category” makes the best sense within such a formalism: what is more important is the idea of the formalism not just the concrete definition. Taku (talk) 21:55, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support conditionally. As a simple article renaming, I don't think this is compelling, as Tannakian category, even if it is synecdoche for the full formalism, seems to be the dominant term for it. The Deligne and Milne chapter on Tannakian categories gets over 800 citations on GScholar, more than any other source. On the other hand, if the aim is to repurpose this article into a more general one on the formalism or approach and retain the category content in context, that seems like a reasonable idea and in this case the transition to formalism is appropriate. Assuming the latter, I support this. --Mark viking (talk) 21:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The one article should (and already to some extent does) cover both these concepts, and to a layperson the formalism is the important thing. Some refactoring and rephrasing of the article will be necessary, and is also a good thing. We are a general encyclopedia. Andrewa (talk) 23:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Fiber functor[edit]

A tannakian category still comes equipped with a fiber (tensor) functor (whose automorphisms is the structure/Galois/fundamental/Tannaka group of the tannakian category), while the article says « the fiber functor Φ of the Galois theory is replaced by a tensor functor T from C to K-Vect. » I don't understand the choice of phrasing here, to me it is confusing. Plm203 (talk) 23:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]