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 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

1. • CommentRowNumber1.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeMay 5th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexI created [[split coequalizer]] and [[absolute coequalizer]], the latter including a characterization of all absolute coequalizers via an "$n$-ary splitting." While I was doing this, I noticed that [[monadic adjunction]] included a statement of the [[monadicity theorem]] without a link to the corresponding page, so I added one. (The discussion at the bottom of [[monadic adjunction]] should probably be merged into the page somehow.) Then I noticed that while we had a page [[preserved limit]], we didn't have [[reflected limit]] or [[created limit]], so I created them. They could use some examples, however. I would also like to include an example of how to actually use the monadicity theorem to prove that a functor is monadic. Something simpler than the classic example in CWM about compact Hausdorff spaces; maybe monadicity of categories over quivers? Probably not something that you would *need* the monadicity theorem for in practice, so that it can be simple and easy to understand.

   I created split coequalizer and absolute coequalizer, the latter including a characterization of all absolute coequalizers via an “$n$-ary splitting.” While I was doing this, I noticed that monadic adjunction included a statement of the monadicity theorem without a link to the corresponding page, so I added one. (The discussion at the bottom of monadic adjunction should probably be merged into the page somehow.) Then I noticed that while we had a page preserved limit, we didn’t have reflected limit or created limit, so I created them. They could use some examples, however.

   I would also like to include an example of how to actually use the monadicity theorem to prove that a functor is monadic. Something simpler than the classic example in CWM about compact Hausdorff spaces; maybe monadicity of categories over quivers? Probably not something that you would need the monadicity theorem for in practice, so that it can be simple and easy to understand.

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeMay 5th 2010
   • (edited May 5th 2010)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexthanks for the limits, Mike, I added your new entries to the floating <a href="http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/infinity-limits+-+contents">limit toc</a> One thing: at [[created limit]] and [[preserved limit]] is found lots of $U$s that I think were meant to be $F$s. I am actually pretty sure, but in case I am badly mixed up somehow, please have a look and check!

   thanks for the limits, Mike, I added your new entries to the floating limit toc

   One thing: at created limit and preserved limit is found lots of $U$s that I think were meant to be $F$s. I am actually pretty sure, but in case I am badly mixed up somehow, please have a look and check!

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeMay 6th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexI don't see the U's, but if they're there, they shouldn't be; I meant to write only about one functor called F.

   I don’t see the U’s, but if they’re there, they shouldn’t be; I meant to write only about one functor called F.

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeMay 6th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItex> I don't see the U's I should have said: I changed them to $F$s! > if they're there, they shouldn't be Okay, good.

   I don’t see the U’s

   I should have said: I changed them to $F$s!

   if they’re there, they shouldn’t be

   Okay, good.

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeMay 6th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexI didn't even see them in the edit history. But as long as it's correct now, that's what matters.

   I didn’t even see them in the edit history. But as long as it’s correct now, that’s what matters.

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeMay 6th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexI started adding some more variants to the [[monadicity theorem]]. I particularly like Duskin's version.

   I started adding some more variants to the monadicity theorem. I particularly like Duskin’s version.

7. • CommentRowNumber7.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeMay 6th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItex> I didn't even see them in the edit history. <a href="http://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/reflected+limit/1">here</a> for instance

   I didn’t even see them in the edit history.

   here for instance

8. • CommentRowNumber8.
   • CommentAuthorYaron
   • CommentTimeNov 28th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Yaron
   Format: MarkdownItexThere appear to be some typos in [[absolute coequalizer]]: First, in the last diagram, it seems that the two parallel arrows should be $f_0 \circ -$ and $f_1\circ -$ (instead of $f \circ -$ and $g\circ -$), then, in the following paragraph, it seems that in $(h_0,h_1)\colon M \to N\times N$, $M$ and $N$ should be replaced by $P$ and $Q$, and finally, there is something strange with $h_{1-\epsilon_i}(p_n)$ -- shouldn't this $i$ be $n$ or $n-1$? (I didn't read it carefully yet.) Perhaps I'm wrong, but please have a look. Also, regarding the [[monadicity theorem]], is there a particular reason that the equivalent condition with absolute coequalizers (instead of split coequalizers) is missing? (This basically says that a monadic functor creates coequalizers for the parallel pairs that are sent by $U$ to a pair with an absolute coequalizer -- is this considered useless?)

   There appear to be some typos in absolute coequalizer: First, in the last diagram, it seems that the two parallel arrows should be $f_0 \circ -$ and $f_1\circ -$ (instead of $f \circ -$ and $g\circ -$), then, in the following paragraph, it seems that in $(h_0,h_1)\colon M \to N\times N$, $M$ and $N$ should be replaced by $P$ and $Q$, and finally, there is something strange with $h_{1-\epsilon_i}(p_n)$ – shouldn’t this $i$ be $n$ or $n-1$? (I didn’t read it carefully yet.) Perhaps I’m wrong, but please have a look.

   Also, regarding the monadicity theorem, is there a particular reason that the equivalent condition with absolute coequalizers (instead of split coequalizers) is missing? (This basically says that a monadic functor creates coequalizers for the parallel pairs that are sent by $U$ to a pair with an absolute coequalizer – is this considered useless?)

9. • CommentRowNumber9.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeNov 29th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexI think you're right about the typos. > is there a particular reason that the equivalent condition with absolute coequalizers (instead of split coequalizers) is missing? Probably just that no one thought to add it. Note that since every split coequalizer is absolute, but not conversely, there are fewer U-split pairs than U-absolute pairs, so "U creates coequalizers of U-split pairs" is a weaker condition than "U creates coequalizers of U-absolute pairs." So the version given currently on the page appears to be slightly more general.

   I think you’re right about the typos.

   is there a particular reason that the equivalent condition with absolute coequalizers (instead of split coequalizers) is missing?

   Probably just that no one thought to add it. Note that since every split coequalizer is absolute, but not conversely, there are fewer U-split pairs than U-absolute pairs, so “U creates coequalizers of U-split pairs” is a weaker condition than “U creates coequalizers of U-absolute pairs.” So the version given currently on the page appears to be slightly more general.

10. • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorYaron
    • CommentTimeNov 29th 2010
    • PermaLink
    Author: Yaron
    Format: MarkdownItexThanks -- corrected the typos. Regarding monadicity: But the version with absolute coequalizers is stronger in the opposite direction (monadicity implies creation of absolute coequalizers). Is there no use for the opposite direction of the PTT?

    Thanks – corrected the typos.

    Regarding monadicity: But the version with absolute coequalizers is stronger in the opposite direction (monadicity implies creation of absolute coequalizers). Is there no use for the opposite direction of the PTT?

11. • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeNov 29th 2010
    • PermaLink
    Author: Mike Shulman
    Format: MarkdownItexI've never seen one, but it's conceivable. However, if I did see one, I might be more inclined to regard it as a special case of the general theorem that "a monadic functor creates all colimits preserved by the monad" rather than as part of the monadicity theorem.

    I’ve never seen one, but it’s conceivable. However, if I did see one, I might be more inclined to regard it as a special case of the general theorem that “a monadic functor creates all colimits preserved by the monad” rather than as part of the monadicity theorem.

12. • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorYaron
    • CommentTimeNov 29th 2010
    • PermaLink
    Author: Yaron
    Format: MarkdownItexI see. Thanks!

    I see. Thanks!