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 accessible adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry bundles calculus categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-theory cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics comma complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive constructive-mathematics cosmology definitions deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration finite foundations functional-analysis functor galois-theory gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry goodwillie-calculus graph graphs gravity 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 infinity integration integration-theory k-theory kan lie-theory limit limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic manifolds mathematics measure-theory modal-logic model model-category-theory monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nonassociative noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pasting philosophy physics planar pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry schemes set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory stack string string-theory subobject superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft type type-theory universal

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.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeMay 24th 2010

    Added Baez-Hoffnung reference to quasitopos, as well as the result that concrete sheaves on a concrete site for a quasitopos

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorRodMcGuire
    • CommentTimeSep 6th 2017

    I’ve added some tags to quasitopos##exampsep as well as links to some of the separated categories.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorRodMcGuire
    • CommentTimeSep 13th 2017

    I’ve added to quasitopos#idea a bit more summary information and a terminology note on strong monomorphism vs regular monomorphism.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorRodMcGuire
    • CommentTimeSep 13th 2017

    I’m confused

    A quasitopos can be unbalenced.

    strong monomorphism says

    regular epimorphism says

    this implies that a regular epimorphism which is also a monomorphism must in fact be an isomorphism.

    regular monomorphism doesn’t say the corresponding statement but says to look at regular epimorphism for dual statements.

    I’m not sure which pages need fixing if they do. I believe a correct statement is that in a quasitopos a strong monomorphism and a regular monomorphism are the same.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeSep 13th 2017

    What are you confused by? All those look like correct statements to me.

    In case it needs saying, one of the main points here is that in a quasitopos, monomomorphisms need not be regular. Whereas in a topos, all monomorphisms are regular.

    Let me prove that last fact, because it’s easy. According to the definition of subobject classifier in a topos, any monomorphism i:ABi: A \to B is obtained by pulling back a universal monomorphism t:1Ωt: 1 \to \Omega along a unique map χ i:BΩ\chi_i: B \to \Omega called the classifying map of ii:

    A ! A 1 i (pb) t B χ i Ω\array{ A & \stackrel{!_A}{\to} & 1 \\ \mathllap{i} \downarrow & (pb) & \downarrow \mathrlap{t} \\ B & \underset{\chi_i}{\to} & \Omega }

    But this is equivalent to saying that i:ABi: A \to B is an equalizer of the pair of maps χ i:BΩ\chi_i : B \to \Omega and B! B1tΩB \stackrel{!_B}{\to} 1 \stackrel{t}{\to} \Omega. Hence every monomorphism ii is an equalizer of some pair of arrows, i.e., every monomorphism is a regular monomorphism.

    The same argument proves generally that given some class of monomorphisms \mathcal{M} closed under composition, isomorphisms, pullbacks, etc., if we have an \mathcal{M}-subobject classifier, i.e., every \mathcal{M}-subobject ii of BB is obtained by pulling back a universal \mathcal{M}-map t:1Ωt: 1 \to \Omega along a unique morphism χ i:BΩ\chi_i: B \to \Omega, then every \mathcal{M}-monomorphism is regular. The converse of this statement for =\mathcal{M} = regular monos is the subobject classifier axiom for a quasitopos.

    A corollary of the argument is that a topos is balanced, i.e., that every epic monomorphism is an isomorphism. This is because epic monomorphisms are epic regular monomorphisms, i.e., epic equalizers, and such are isomorphisms. For if e:ABe: A \to B is epic and is the equalizer of f,g:BXf, g: B \rightrightarrows X, then from the equalizing equation fe=gef e = g e and ee’s being epic, we deduce f=gf = g. But the equalizer of an identical pair f=gf = g must be (isomorphic to) 1 B:BB1_B: B \to B – that is to say, the equalizer must be an isomorphism.

    But of course this argument does not extend to show that a quasitopos is balanced, for the simple reason that monomorphisms in a quasitopos need not be regular. An intuitive class of examples to keep in mind for this are the various topological quasitoposes one often sees, such as the category of pseudotopological spaces or equilogical spaces. Just as in TopTop a monomorphism i:ABi: A \to B is regular if and only if the factoring Ai(A)A \to i(A) through the image with the subspace topology is an isomorphism, so it is in PseudoTopPseudoTop that regular monomomorphisms are essentially the same as subspaces, so that (for example) the identity map id: discid: \mathbb{R}_{disc} \to \mathbb{R} (from \mathbb{R} with the discrete topology to \mathbb{R} with the standard topology) is an example of a monomorphism that is not regular in PseudoTopPseudoTop.