Talk:Grothendieck construction

I'm not sure why this article was tagged as "not notable". It comes up in computer science, for example, where it used to transform a database instance into a database schema ("the schema of elements"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.44.66 (talk) 16:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

In response to 24.61.44.66; Spivak's work on applying category theory to database analysis has yet to be widely adopted and so is hardly a knock-down example of the ubiquity of the Grothendieck construction. I see that you also took a quote from Spivak's pop sci book on category theory and added it to the page under the heading "Slogan." I am not a physicist, and if I read a nontechnical book on physics by Michio Kaku or Sabine Hossenfelder or another well-known physicist where they advocate their own ideas, I would take it with a grain of salt. I would suggest that if you're not an expert in category theory or databases, you should do the same with Spivak's book. The Grothendieck construction is indeed important in fibred category theory, descent, the theory of stacks, and so on, but of limited impact outside of algebraic topology, algebraic geometry, and the categorical semantics of type theory. Gadget142 (talk) 23:21, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

This is actually the category of elements, which is a degenerated version of Grothendieck construction.--刻意(Kèyì) 00:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)