Skip to main content
added explanatory note from OP's comment
Source Link
Chris Sunami
  • 20.1k
  • 3
  • 47
  • 86

We will make the convention that exact categories be skeletally small.

Is this construction (used in a mathematical context) correct? There is something that strikes me as odd in that "be". Should it be "are"? I know I've seen a similar way of using "be" like that, without conjugating the verb, but I'm not completely sure when it should be used.

We will make the convention that exact categories be skeletally small.

Is this construction correct? There is something that strikes me as odd in that "be". Should it be "are"? I know I've seen a similar way of using "be" like that, without conjugating the verb, but I'm not completely sure when it should be used.

We will make the convention that exact categories be skeletally small.

Is this construction (used in a mathematical context) correct? There is something that strikes me as odd in that "be". Should it be "are"? I know I've seen a similar way of using "be" like that, without conjugating the verb, but I'm not completely sure when it should be used.

edited tags
Link
tchrist
  • 137.3k
  • 49
  • 376
  • 609
Source Link

"That... be" construction

We will make the convention that exact categories be skeletally small.

Is this construction correct? There is something that strikes me as odd in that "be". Should it be "are"? I know I've seen a similar way of using "be" like that, without conjugating the verb, but I'm not completely sure when it should be used.