Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

• Username
• Password
• Remember me

• Sign in using OpenID
  
  
• Remember me

• Forgot your password?
• Apply for membership

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry book bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology definitions deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration foundation foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nforum nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pages pasting philosophy physics pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory stack string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft type type-theory universal variational-calculus

1. • CommentRowNumber1.
   • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
   • CommentTimeOct 4th 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: Todd_Trimble
   Format: MarkdownItexIt is asserted at [[internally projective object]] that a projective object in a topos is internally projective. I'm having a hard time seeing this. Can anyone help?

   It is asserted at internally projective object that a projective object in a topos is internally projective. I’m having a hard time seeing this. Can anyone help?

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
   • CommentTimeOct 4th 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: DavidRoberts
   Format: MarkdownItexIsn't the statement that the object $x$ is internally projective equivalent to the statement that $x$ is projective in the [[stack semantics]]? If so then the assertion follows quite quickly, I think.

   Isn’t the statement that the object is internally projective equivalent to the statement that is projective in the stack semantics? If so then the assertion follows quite quickly, I think.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
   • CommentTimeOct 4th 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: Todd_Trimble
   Format: MarkdownItexIf it's easy to see, would you be able to write down a proof, written at a level understandable to a reader of Mac Lane-Moerdijk? I confess that I'm not following your suggestion. Wait: I _knew_ this topic seemed familiar! See [this discussion](http://nforum.mathforge.org/discussion/3008/internally-projective-objects/). Why wasn't the page [[internally projective object]] ever corrected?

   If it’s easy to see, would you be able to write down a proof, written at a level understandable to a reader of Mac Lane-Moerdijk? I confess that I’m not following your suggestion.

   Wait: I knew this topic seemed familiar! See this discussion. Why wasn’t the page internally projective object ever corrected?

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
   • CommentTimeOct 4th 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: DavidRoberts
   Format: MarkdownItexMaybe I was just jumping to the assumption that the page was in fact correct :-) I'm glad you found the old discussion so quickly.

   Maybe I was just jumping to the assumption that the page was in fact correct :-) I’m glad you found the old discussion so quickly.

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
   • CommentTimeOct 4th 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: Todd_Trimble
   Format: MarkdownItexThis comment also relates to the ongoing COSHEP/PAx thread. I think I might have an example that shows that not even presheaf toposes need satisfy the internal PAx. This example would serve two purposes: to show the need for care in the examples under the [topos section](http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/presentation+axiom#topos), and to give an example of an externally projective object which is not internally projective, which is the topic of this thread. Let $C$ be the poset whose objects belong to the set $\mathbb{N} \cup \{a, b\}$, and whose non-identity morphisms consist of those of $\mathbb{N}$ under its usual linear order, and a morphism from each $n$ in $\mathbb{N}$ to $a$, and a morphism from each $n$ to $b$. I'm going to try to argue that $C(-, a)$ is not internally projective in the presheaf topos $Set^{C^{op}}$. (Same for $C(-, b)$ of course.) Let $F$ be the presheaf defined by $F(a) = F(b) = \emptyset$ and $F(n) = \{-n, -n-1, -n-2, \ldots\}$, with transition map $F(n+1) \to F(n)$ the obvious inclusion. Let $G$ be the presheaf defined by $G(a) = G(b) = \emptyset$ and $G(n) = 1$ for all $n$. The unique morphism $F \to G$ is clearly epic. I am going to try to argue that the induced map $F^{C(-, a)} \to G^{C(-, a)}$ is not epic, more particularly that the function $F^{C(-, a)}(b) \to G^{C(-, a)}(b)$ is not surjective. By the usual formula for the exponential (internal hom) $F^{C(-, a)}$, we have $$F^{C(-, a)}(b) = Nat(C(-, a) \times C(-, b), F)$$ Let $\theta: C(-, a) \times C(-, b) \to F$ be a natural transformation. The components at $a$ and $b$ are fairly uninteresting: they just amount to identity maps $\emptyset \to \emptyset$. The component at $n$ amounts to a map $\theta_n = 1 \times 1 \to F(n)$. The naturality condition means that we have a matching family where the element $\theta_{n+1}$ maps to $\theta_n$ under the inclusion $F(n+1) \to F(n)$. In other words, a natural transformation $\theta$ amounts to an element of the inverse limit $\lim_{\leftarrow} F(n)$, in other words the intersection of the $F(n)$, which is empty. Thus we calculate $F^{C(-, a)}(b)$ to be empty. On the other hand, it's pretty easy to calculate that $G^{C(-, a)}(b) =1$. Obviously $F^{C(-, a)}(b) \to G^{C(-, a)}(b)$ is not surjective.

   This comment also relates to the ongoing COSHEP/PAx thread.

   I think I might have an example that shows that not even presheaf toposes need satisfy the internal PAx. This example would serve two purposes: to show the need for care in the examples under the topos section, and to give an example of an externally projective object which is not internally projective, which is the topic of this thread.

   Let be the poset whose objects belong to the set , and whose non-identity morphisms consist of those of under its usual linear order, and a morphism from each in to , and a morphism from each to . I’m going to try to argue that is not internally projective in the presheaf topos . (Same for of course.)

   Let be the presheaf defined by and , with transition map the obvious inclusion. Let be the presheaf defined by and for all . The unique morphism is clearly epic. I am going to try to argue that the induced map is not epic, more particularly that the function is not surjective.

   By the usual formula for the exponential (internal hom) , we have

   Let be a natural transformation. The components at and are fairly uninteresting: they just amount to identity maps . The component at amounts to a map . The naturality condition means that we have a matching family where the element maps to under the inclusion . In other words, a natural transformation amounts to an element of the inverse limit , in other words the intersection of the , which is empty.

   Thus we calculate to be empty. On the other hand, it’s pretty easy to calculate that . Obviously is not surjective.

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeAug 15th 2013
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexI have a new question about the notion of "internally projective". For a notion to be sensibly regarded as "internal" (and in particular, for it to correspond to some statement in the stack semantics), it ought to be stable under pullback. Is it true that if $E$ is internally projective in $\mathcal{T}$, then $E\times X$ is internally projective in $\mathcal{T}/X$ for any $X$? If so, then right now I'm having a hard time seeing why.

   I have a new question about the notion of “internally projective”. For a notion to be sensibly regarded as “internal” (and in particular, for it to correspond to some statement in the stack semantics), it ought to be stable under pullback. Is it true that if is internally projective in , then is internally projective in for any ? If so, then right now I’m having a hard time seeing why.

7. • CommentRowNumber7.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeAug 24th 2013
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexThe answer to my question in #6 is yes, see [this answer](http://mathoverflow.net/a/140262/49). I've added this and a more explicit stack-semantics characterization to the page [[internally projective object]].

   The answer to my question in #6 is yes, see this answer. I’ve added this and a more explicit stack-semantics characterization to the page internally projective object.