Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below
Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
Why does one need to take the closure under small colimits? Isn’t [Cop,Set]Φ already cocomplete, because it’s reflective in [Cop,Set]? I thought this was the point of the Freyd-Kelly paper Categories of continuous functors.
Restored a co- (haplololologized by revision 5), for nsistency.
Hi I am not sure whether this page, and the title “conservative cocompletion”, is supposed to be about colimit completion preserving Φ colimits for a given class Φ, or about colimit completion preserving all existing colimits (i.e. only in the case when Φ is precisely the class of colimits that exist). If the latter, I think we should have a page for the former, and my edits should probably have gone there. But I can’t find one, and I’m not aware of a nice name for this, is there one (could say “models” in the sense of sketches, but that’s quite a generic and overused word)? Or does “Φ-conservative cocompletion” already mean the former?
Probably best for the time being to create subsections for the different cases in this one entry.
If and when these subsections individually grow large then it will still be easy to split them into distinct entries.
One can talk about the Φ-conservative Ψ-cocompletion. At the moment, the page currently only describes the case in which Ψ is the class of small colimits, but it would make sense also to mention the more general situation.
1 to 14 of 14