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 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 nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory object 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

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).

nLab > Latest Changes: L-finite category

Bottom of Page

1 to 9 of 9

  1.  
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeAug 25th 2021
    • (edited Aug 25th 2021)

    added pointer (below a new Proposition-environment here) to where Paré states/proves the characterizations of L-finite limits (namely on his p. 740, specifically in his Prop. 7 – this also makes clear which typo the footnote is about).

    Similarly I added pointer (below a new Remark-environment here) to where Paré discusses the relation to K-finitness (namely the next page), together with attribution to Richard Wood.

    diff, v6, current

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeAug 25th 2021
    • (edited Aug 25th 2021)

    I suspect that ’LL-finite’ is the sort of thing that comes into its own in a constructive setting. Just as K-finite=finite=D-finite in classical mathematics (if I’m not mistaken), but these are different in the internal logic of a topos, one might need a special notion of finiteness of diagrams (added: invariant under suitable equivalence) that captures what is meant when doing internal category theory in a general topos.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeAug 25th 2021

    Incidentally, what’s an example of an L-finite category/limit that’s not finite?

    I don’t see that Paré’s article gives any such example. But we need to give one for the claim at finite limit that finite limits are not the saturation class of pullbacks+terminal object.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeAug 25th 2021

    Surely a non-finite category with an initial object is L-finite?

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeAug 25th 2021

    Oh, I see, sure. I’ll add this as a remark now.

    But do we also have an interesting example?

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeAug 25th 2021

    A finite coproduct of such is more non-trivial. Or take a finite category with some objects with no non-identity arrows coming out of them. Then attach a copy of the poset ω\omega to each one.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeAug 25th 2021

    added the example here

    diff, v7, current

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeAug 25th 2021

    K-finite sets are defined on this page in Remark 1.2, while at the same time the link K-finite set redirects to finite set where ’K-finiteness’ is given as

    admits a surjection from some finite set [n]; that is, it is a quotient set of a finite set.

    Is that obvious that these definitions are equivalent?

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeAug 25th 2021

    This is also asserted in the section “Finiteness without infinity” on the page finite set. I don’t remember the proof offhand, but it’s probably in the Elephant.

1 to 9 of 9

  1.