Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below
Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
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 $n$-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.
When I just looked, I saw “essentially monomorphic”, but not “essentially strict”.
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”.
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.
1 to 8 of 8