Anindya wrote:

> I think there's a mistake in the proof that \\(\mathcal{X}^\text{op}\\) is a \\(\mathcal{V}\\)-enriched category.

Whoops! I'll fix it.

This is actually _good_, it restores my sense of reality. "To compose arrows that are turned around, you need to be able to move them around each other" - that's why defining the opposite of a \\(\mathcal{V}\\) -enriched category should require \\(\mathcal{V}\\) to be commutative. I should have been more suspicious of my sudden "discovery".

> I think there's a mistake in the proof that \\(\mathcal{X}^\text{op}\\) is a \\(\mathcal{V}\\)-enriched category.

Whoops! I'll fix it.

This is actually _good_, it restores my sense of reality. "To compose arrows that are turned around, you need to be able to move them around each other" - that's why defining the opposite of a \\(\mathcal{V}\\) -enriched category should require \\(\mathcal{V}\\) to be commutative. I should have been more suspicious of my sudden "discovery".