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 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

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: locally cartesian category

Bottom of Page

1 to 2 of 2

  1.  
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
    • CommentTimeJul 18th 2022
    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
    • CommentTimeJul 18th 2022

    Removed a discussion:

    Discussion

    Here is some discussion on terminology from cartesian monad:

    I would call a category with all pullbacks ’locally cartesian’. Shouldn't a cartesian category at least have a terminal object? Would a terminal object make any difference here? —Toby

    I think you’re right about the standard terminology. Both Tom Leinster and Jurgen Koslowski (pdf) use the terminology above. I’m not sure how we want to resolve this here. I’ll think about it, and look at the standard references, and fix the terminology on this page if nobody else does first. -Patrick

    How is this? -Patrick

    Mike: The Elephant definitely uses “cartesian” to mean “all finite limits.” However, I’m not sure how universal that is; I think at least in the past, some people have used “cartesian” to refer only to finite products. I’m sure that a cartesian object in a 2-category has been defined to be one such that A→A×AA\to A\times A and A→1A\to 1 have right adjoints. Also the notion of “cartesian bicategory” refers only to finite products (and extra stuff too). And cartesian monoidal category and cartesian closed category certainly only means finite products. On the other hand, of course as you say, in this context “cartesian monads” only refer to pullbacks, not terminal objects and hence not products. There is also the use of “cartesian square” to mean a pullback square, which generalizes to “cartesian morphism” in a fibration.

    Toby: Yes, despite the historical justification that Johnstone gives in the Elephant, I'd stick with (what I understand to be) the usual terminology: ’cartesian’ means finite products. Then ’locally cartesian’ means each slice is cartesian, hence pullbacks. Now the term for all finite limits is ’cartesian locally cartesian’ (and topologists, at least, do say things like ’connected locally connected’), but that mouthful just tells us that the time has come to say ’left exact’ or ’finitely complete’ instead.

    Mike: I assume you mean that ’cartesian’ means finite products. “Finitely complete” is also an reasonable term meaning “having finite limits.”

    Toby: Yes, of course, fixed.

    diff, v4, current

1 to 2 of 2

  1.