User talk:MotherFunctor

welcome

I've seen you around my watchlist a couple days, and now you've made yourself a userpage, so that means it's time for a newbie welcoming! I think we have a template for that.... lemme see...

Welcome!

Hello, MotherFunctor, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

yeah, that's it. I'll also invite you to add Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics to your watchlist. That's where all the math-heads hang around to discuss broader issues of math pages. Oh any by the way, I replied to your comment at Talk:Exact sequence with a question in case you'd like to carry on that conversation. I hope you like the place, I know I do. -lethe ^{talk +} 10:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Username

Heh... --HappyCamper 02:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedians under influence

The wikibox was a joke from Analogdemon. It's the {{DUI}} template. --hdante 06:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manifold

Ha! Well put by the previous two comments! But don't you know, precalc is what you study after prealgebra, before you get to prenumbertheory and preriemanniangeometry. you definitely need a little preriemanniangeomerty to understand manifolds. was great. My new Quote of the Week for next week. T e ke 07:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment on your username

I have listed your username on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names. –RHolton ≡– 03:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for edit summary

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. – Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Mother Functor

Still intrigued by your nick, I thought about the most basic functor of them all, the "Mother Functor". And I believe it is the functor that appears in Yoneda's lemma. (Yoneda's lemma states that two functors are isomorphic, so I'm not distinguishing between the two, and call them both Mother Functor.) But you may want to poll a couple other people to see what they think. Cheers, AxelBoldt 17:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment, I had to think about this a while, so excuse the relay lag. Yes, the Hom functor seems to be the mother functor. I'm still learning about this stuff, though. A more playful answer, perhaps, could be that analogy is the mother functor. Analogies map objects to objects (thus the simile), and also map predicates to predicates, (thus the isto/as/isto analogy). This is functorial if we consider predicates to be arrows between objects in a system. How "motherly" you consider this functor depends on how primitive or fundamental you think the analogy is. (If you'll excuse me going a little too far with the pun), I'm interested in the model where analogy gives birth to knowledge. (This idea, nascent in my mind, is forming as I attend a class of Donna Haraway's). Thanks for asking! MotherFunctor 05:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

email

Sorry about that, I should have discussed it on your talk page first. A visiable email on your page does allow for the email address to be harvested by spammers. --Salix alba (talk) 08:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recreation of Christianity is Stupid

While this might be a worthwhile topic, please don't make an article until you have something to say about the topic that is verifiable by a reliable source, besides the mere fact of the song's existence. —dgies^t_c 07:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

okay, you right. MotherFunctor 11:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]