Not signed in (Sign In)

Start a new discussion

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 bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-theory cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics 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 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 homology homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory k-theory kan 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 natural nforum nlab nonassociative 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 string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topological topology topos topos-theory 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).
    • 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.

Add your comments
  • Please log in or leave your comment as a "guest post". If commenting as a "guest", please include your name in the message as a courtesy. Note: only certain categories allow guest posts.
  • To produce a hyperlink to an nLab entry, simply put double square brackets around its name, e.g. [[category]]. To use (La)TeX mathematics in your post, make sure Markdown+Itex is selected below and put your mathematics between dollar signs as usual. Only a subset of the usual TeX math commands are accepted: see here for a list.

  • (Help)