Not signed in (Sign In)

Not signed in

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

  • Sign in using OpenID

Site Tag Cloud

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 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 sheaves 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

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to nForum
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).
  1. Exposé in SGA4 was not mentioned


    diff, v4, current

  2. Exposé in SGA4 was not mentioned


    diff, v4, current

  3. Exposé in SGA4 was not mentioned


    diff, v4, current

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeFeb 21st 2020

    I do not understand this entry. If an object is isomorphic to a colimit it is itself a colimit of the same type of the diagram, namely the original cone postcomposed with the isomorphism. So, what is the imaginary difference between strict ind-objects and “essentially strict”. I understand that there are some concrete presentations of ind objects as diagrams themselves, then there is a difference between those which are strict on the nose and those which are isomorphic, but this is not according to the definition in the entry which considers ind objects as colimits somewhere (even, there is “vertex” mentioned!). Besides, it is not in the spirit of nn-Lab to make definitions depending on very specific presentations. I have never heard of essentially strict objects despite working much on the strict ind-pro-objects with a PhD student.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeFeb 21st 2020

    When I just looked, I saw “essentially monomorphic”, but not “essentially strict”.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeFeb 22nd 2020
    • (edited Feb 22nd 2020)

    Looks like this is about the paragraph added in revision 3 (by Zoran! :-)

    I read this as that the clause “which is isomorphic to” is just being misleading and could be removed: The paragraph is simply saying that “strict ind-objects are also called essentially monomorphic objects”.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
    • CommentTimeFeb 22nd 2020

    I deleted the redundant paragraph about isomorphisms.

    diff, v6, current

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeMar 3rd 2020
    • (edited Mar 3rd 2020)

    Thank you Urs, 6! Your solution to the wording is good.

    I do not remember writing this, but it must be me, as I did indeed research the subject in 2017, when the paragraph was recorded, maybe I came across some confusing reference at that point (and forgot about it quickly, as I claim above to never hear of it!). But with present level of piece of the mind at least I clearly see the added paragraph misleading.

    Thanks again.