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: Lawvere interval

Bottom of Page

1 to 18 of 18

  1.  
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorjonsterling
    • CommentTimeMay 29th 2023

    Fix mistaken uniqueness claims

    diff, v4, current

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorHurkyl
    • CommentTimeJun 10th 2023

    Added redirect for Lawvere cylinder

    diff, v5, current

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJun 11th 2023
    • (edited Jun 11th 2023)

    looking over this entry and polishing here and there, I noticed that the proof offered (since rev 1) for why the subobject classifier is Cisinski fibrant (this Prop.) was no proof. So I went ahead and spelled out a proof.

    Also added pointer to Cisinski (2006), 1.3.9 for the terminology in the entry (previously it sounded as if “we” made this up). Incidentally, that paragraph points to MacLane and Moerdijk (1992), VI 10.1 for the proof of the proposition, but checking out what it says there, it seems only rather vaguely related.

    [edit: as pointed out below, it must be “IV.10.1”]

    diff, v7, current

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorHurkyl
    • CommentTimeJun 11th 2023
    • (edited Jun 11th 2023)

    More generally, I believe you can characterize the trivial fibrations X→YX \to Y as being those that induce a weak pullback square

    X×Ω → X ⊥ ↓ ↓ Y×Ω → Y ⊥ \begin{matrix} X \times \Omega &\to& X_\bot \\ \downarrow && \downarrow \\ Y \times \Omega &\to& Y_\bot \end{matrix}

    where Ω\Omega is the subobject classifier, X ⊥X_\bot is the partial map classifier (which is itself trivially fibrant; the nLab page mentions it’s an injective object), and the horizontal maps are restriction, and might be even more simply described with the partial map classifier for PSh(A) /YPSh(A)_{/Y}.

    If I’ve not made errors, this is mainly writing down, for some p:X→Yp : X \to Y, the (representable!) presheaf of lifting problems for monomorphisms against pp, and expressing it in terms of partial maps, and the argument works in any topos (even elementary ones).

    Also, I think the fibrations (in the minimal Cisinski model structure) are as being those such that the pullback powers X Ω→X× YY ΩX^\Omega \to X \times_Y Y^\Omega are trivial fibrations for both endpoints, at least if you assume Cisinski’s characterization of the generating acyclic cofibrations as the pushout products of generating cofibrations with endpoints 1→Ω1 \to \Omega (which I think he only proves for presheaf toposes?).

    I was thinking about adding some of the stuff I’ve worked through about the minimal Cisinski model structure to this page, but I’m not sure if I’m going to be able to get around to it.

  5. That proposition in MacLane and Moerdijk (on p. 210 of my copy) states that the subobject classifier is an injective object (i.e. has the RLP wrt all monos), which indeed implies immediately that it is fibrant.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJun 11th 2023
    • (edited Jun 11th 2023)

    p. 210 of my copy

    Oh, I see what may have happened here: Cisinski’s thesis points the reader to VI.10.1 (which is what I was looking at) but you are saying it must be IV.10.1.

    Right, I’ll edit the wording in the entry now, accordingly.

    [edit: Ironically, I now see I made a typo in copying Cisinski’s typo to the nForum above. With an even number of ℤ/2\mathbb{Z}/2-valued typos this gave the correct reference, by chance, which may be how you discovered it?! :-]

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJun 11th 2023

    have further adjusted/expanded the wording of the proposition and its proof (here)

    diff, v10, current

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorHurkyl
    • CommentTimeJul 8th 2024
    • (edited Jul 9th 2024)

    Is the example correct? I totally believe that if you used the interval Δ 1\Delta^1 that Λ Δ 1(S,M)\Lambda_{\Delta^1}(S, M) generates is the model structure for right fibrations… but it’s not obvious to me that Λ 𝔏(S,M)\Lambda_{\mathfrak{L}}(S, M) does too.

    In particular, Λ Δ 1(S,M)\Lambda_{\Delta^1}(S, M) contains the maps ∂□ n×Δ 1∪□ n×{1}↪□ n×Δ 1\partial \square^n \times \Delta^1 \cup \square^n \times \{1\} \hookrightarrow \square^n \times \Delta^1 and IIRC the right horn inclusions are retracts of these.

    However, Λ 𝔏(S,M)\Lambda_{\mathfrak{L}}(S, M) instead contains ∂L n×Δ 1∪L n×{1}⊆L n×Δ 1\partial L^n \times \Delta^1 \cup L^n \times \{ 1 \} \subseteq L^n \times \Delta^1 which makes things less obvious.

    Here, by ∂L n\partial L^n I mean the union of the faces of the cube L nL^n. I.e. all the subobjects L i×{e}×L n−i−1L^i \times \{ e \} \times L^{n-i-1} with e∈{0,1}e \in \{0,1\}. The inclusion is the n-fold pushout product of {0,1}⊆L\{0, 1 \} \subseteq L with itself.

    I know that the example would be correct if you included the right horn inclusions in SS, but the example includes only {1}⊆Δ 1\{1\} \subseteq \Delta^1.

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorAlexanderCampbell
    • CommentTimeJul 9th 2024
    • (edited Jul 9th 2024)

    That example is indeed incorrect. I also think that the “Proposition” at the end of §2 is not worth keeping; in its current state it is only implicitly connected to the subject of the page, and in any case is already treated in more detail on the page for Cisinski model structures. I think both example and proposition are fit for deletion.

  10. I deleted the proposition and example as per my previous comment.

    Alexander Campbell

    diff, v11, current

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorHurkyl
    • CommentTimeJul 9th 2024

    Added the statement that LL is a universal cylinder.

    diff, v12, current

    • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorHurkyl
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2024

    Added a characterization of trivial fibrations in a topos.

    diff, v13, current

    • CommentRowNumber13.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2024

    where it says:

    For the arrow p:X→Sp : X \to S, X→Opt S(X)→SX \to \mathrm{Opt}_S(X) \to S is, in fact, a factorization of pp…

    maybe better just:

    Because X→Opt S(X)→SX \to \mathrm{Opt}_S(X) \to S is, in fact, a factorization of pp…

    and for clarity, why not wrap this with \begin{proof}…\end{proof}.

    diff, v14, current

    • CommentRowNumber14.
    • CommentAuthorHurkyl
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2024
    • (edited Jul 11th 2024)

    I’m still waffling on the presentation, but wanted to get the related fact down while I”m writing.

    I’m imagining that the construction of cofibration-trivial fibration factorizations should be a proposition itself. But I also want to give a proof Opt S(X)→SOpt_S(X) \to S is a trivial fibration – either separately using the characterization I just gave, or by generalizing the more explicit proof for L→1L \to 1 that follows.

    • CommentRowNumber15.
    • CommentAuthorHurkyl
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2024

    Better statement of the characterizations.

    diff, v15, current

    • CommentRowNumber16.
    • CommentAuthorHurkyl
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2024
    • (edited Jul 11th 2024)

    I’m saying things true of all toposes rather than just Grothendieck toposes (or just presheaf toposes), so I’ve been reluctant to actually use the term “trivial fibration”. At least, not until I get to a point where I can show everything is sufficiently model-structure-like. Am I being too pedantic and should use the phrase anyways?

    • CommentRowNumber17.
    • CommentAuthorHurkyl
    • CommentTimeJul 12th 2024

    I guess I should clarify what I mean about “sufficiently model-structure-like”. While the 𝔏\mathfrak{L}-fibrant objects can be easily characterized as those objects XX where both endpoint evaluations X L→XX^L \to X are trivial fibrations… what I’m missing is an elementary construction of fibrant replacements. So, in the case of presheaf toposes I can invoke Cisinski to say they exist and it all assembles into a model structure, but I don’t know about general toposes, especially non-Grothendieck ones. So, I’ve been wanting to avoid using that language outside of the presheaf topos case.

    And I wanted to work out a better understanding of how it all works before I feel confident unilaterally declaring a definition of 𝔏\mathfrak{L}-fibrant object for elementary toposes.

    • CommentRowNumber18.
    • CommentAuthorHurkyl
    • CommentTimeJul 20th 2024

    Added some comments on the anodyne maps and fibrant objects.

    diff, v16, current

1 to 18 of 18

  1.