It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

- All Categories 2.4K
- Chat 505
- Study Groups 21
- Petri Nets 9
- Epidemiology 4
- Leaf Modeling 2
- Review Sections 9
- MIT 2020: Programming with Categories 51
- MIT 2020: Lectures 20
- MIT 2020: Exercises 25
- Baez ACT 2019: Online Course 339
- Baez ACT 2019: Lectures 79
- Baez ACT 2019: Exercises 149
- Baez ACT 2019: Chat 50
- UCR ACT Seminar 4
- General 75
- Azimuth Code Project 111
- Statistical methods 4
- Drafts 10
- Math Syntax Demos 15
- Wiki - Latest Changes 3
- Strategy 113
- Azimuth Project 1.1K
- - Spam 1
- News and Information 148
- Azimuth Blog 149
- - Conventions and Policies 21
- - Questions 43
- Azimuth Wiki 719

## Comments

@Scott #50 – yes, because antisymmetry identifies any two elements in a cycle

`@Scott #50 – yes, because antisymmetry identifies any two elements in a cycle`

@Anindya #50: thanks.

`@Anindya #50: thanks.`

Scott: this is correct! And I'm pretty sure I've convinced Brendan and David to change their terminology so it matches the rest of the world's. They will keep updating their book, fixing mistakes we find... and I think I've managed to get them to make this change too.

`Scott: this is correct! And I'm pretty sure I've convinced Brendan and David to change their terminology so it matches the rest of the world's. They will keep updating their book, fixing mistakes we find... and I think I've managed to get them to make this change too.`

Thanks @Scott, your post is immensely clarifying and exactly the sort of thing I hoped for in studying "applied" category theory.

`Thanks [@Scott](https://forum.azimuthproject.org/profile/1894/Scott%20Finnie), your [post](https://forum.azimuthproject.org/discussion/comment/16340/#Comment_16340) is immensely clarifying and exactly the sort of thing I hoped for in studying "applied" category theory.`

I'm a bit confused by

Remark 1.24. Are Fong & Spivak just saying that what's normally called a "partially ordered set" will be referred to as a "skeletal poset"? It's a bit confusing that a partially ordered set is an extension of something thatsounds like"partially ordered set" in its name.`I'm a bit confused by _Remark 1.24_. Are Fong & Spivak just saying that what's normally called a "partially ordered set" will be referred to as a "skeletal poset"? It's a bit confusing that a partially ordered set is an extension of something that _sounds like_ "partially ordered set" in its name.`

Jared Davis - I've talked Fong and Spivak out of calling partially ordered sets "skeletal posets". Please download the latest copy of

Seven Sketches. The problem that's bothering you will be gone, and Remark 1.24 will be transformed into something more reasonable: a remark pointing out that a skeletal preorder is a poset.`Jared Davis - I've talked Fong and Spivak out of calling partially ordered sets "skeletal posets". Please [download the latest copy of _Seven Sketches_](http://math.mit.edu/~dspivak/teaching/sp18/7Sketches.pdf). The problem that's bothering you will be gone, and Remark 1.24 will be transformed into something more reasonable: a remark pointing out that a skeletal preorder is a poset.`