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 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

1. • CommentRowNumber1.
   • CommentAuthorjademaster
   • CommentTimeJan 15th 2023
   • PermaLink
   Author: jademaster
   Format: MarkdownItexJust some notes about generalizing the Grothendieck construction to models of a theory. <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/T-Grothendieck+construction/1">v1</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/T-Grothendieck+construction">current</a>

   Just some notes about generalizing the Grothendieck construction to models of a theory.

   v1, current

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorvarkor
   • CommentTimeJan 16th 2023
   • (edited Jan 16th 2023)
   • PermaLink
   Author: varkor
   Format: MarkdownItexA few minor issues that are easily addressed: - $T$ is said to be an algebraic theory, but the theory of categories is not algebraic. - The categories of "models of a theory" are here given as functor categories, but the definition of model of a theory requires some limit preservation. - The information about 2-functoriality of functor categories is useful to have, but would probably make more sense on [[functor category]]. - In the first example "we recover the displayed category construction" seems a little bit of a stretch, given that the equivalence you reference is doing a lot of work. - It would be good to explain how the main equivalence is an instance of the Grothendieck construction. The concern I have with the page is that the main theorem is really nothing about (algebraic) theories: it's an immediate consequence of the (discrete) Grothendieck construction, as you explain in the proof. It's not clear that this deserves its own name. Perhaps it would be better to explain that this is a useful consequence of the Grothendieck construction on the [[Grothendieck construction]] page?

   A few minor issues that are easily addressed:

   • $T$ is said to be an algebraic theory, but the theory of categories is not algebraic.
   • The categories of “models of a theory” are here given as functor categories, but the definition of model of a theory requires some limit preservation.
   • The information about 2-functoriality of functor categories is useful to have, but would probably make more sense on functor category.
   • In the first example “we recover the displayed category construction” seems a little bit of a stretch, given that the equivalence you reference is doing a lot of work.
   • It would be good to explain how the main equivalence is an instance of the Grothendieck construction.

   The concern I have with the page is that the main theorem is really nothing about (algebraic) theories: it’s an immediate consequence of the (discrete) Grothendieck construction, as you explain in the proof. It’s not clear that this deserves its own name. Perhaps it would be better to explain that this is a useful consequence of the Grothendieck construction on the Grothendieck construction page?