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 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 internal-categories k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology 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.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeMay 3rd 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexcreated [[concrete site]]

   created concrete site

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
   • CommentTimeJul 4th 2020
   • PermaLink
   Author: Dmitri Pavlov
   Format: MarkdownItexThis definition reproduces the definition from Version 2 of <https://arxiv.org/abs/0807.1704>. In Version 3, Baez and Hoffnung added the requirement that the site is subcanonical, and even mentioned this correction in the arXiv comment: > 43 pages, version to be published; includes corrected definition of "concrete site" Why is this requirement necessary? And if it is, we should probably add it to the article.

   This definition reproduces the definition from Version 2 of https://arxiv.org/abs/0807.1704.

   In Version 3, Baez and Hoffnung added the requirement that the site is subcanonical, and even mentioned this correction in the arXiv comment:

   43 pages, version to be published; includes corrected definition of “concrete site”

   Why is this requirement necessary? And if it is, we should probably add it to the article.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeJul 5th 2020
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexPerhaps just because they want the representables to be concrete sheaves (Prop 29)?

   Perhaps just because they want the representables to be concrete sheaves (Prop 29)?

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeJul 5th 2020
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItex...which is used in the proofs of their Props 45 (the category of concrete sheaves is lcc) and 51 (every concrete sheaf is a colimit of representables).

   …which is used in the proofs of their Props 45 (the category of concrete sheaves is lcc) and 51 (every concrete sheaf is a colimit of representables).

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
   • CommentTimeJul 5th 2020
   • (edited Jul 5th 2020)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Dmitri Pavlov
   Format: MarkdownItexIt is definitely is referenced in Propositions 45 and 51, but is it actually necessary to prove them? Johnstone (Elephant, Theorem C2.2.13) proves that $k$-separated objects in a Grothendieck topos (for some local operator $k$) form a locally presentable, locally cartesian closed, quasi-effective, cocomplete quasitopos with a generating set. This takes care of Proposition 45, in particular, and does not require the site to be subcanonical. As for Proposition 51, can we not replace representables by their sheafifications?

   It is definitely is referenced in Propositions 45 and 51, but is it actually necessary to prove them?

   Johnstone (Elephant, Theorem C2.2.13) proves that $k$-separated objects in a Grothendieck topos (for some local operator $k$) form a locally presentable, locally cartesian closed, quasi-effective, cocomplete quasitopos with a generating set.

   This takes care of Proposition 45, in particular, and does not require the site to be subcanonical.

   As for Proposition 51, can we not replace representables by their sheafifications?