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 definitions 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 k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nforum 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: invariant set

Bottom of Page

1 to 10 of 10

  1.  
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorPaoloPerrone
    • CommentTimeJul 12th 2024

    Creating page for now, adding more content soon.

    v1, current

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorPaoloPerrone
    • CommentTimeJul 12th 2024

    Added most of the planned content.

    diff, v2, current

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorPaoloPerrone
    • CommentTimeJul 12th 2024

    Changed page name to singular.

    diff, v2, current

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 12th 2024

    where it said that points need not be invariant, I made it read:

    the elements (“points”) of an invariant set need not themselves be fixed points

    diff, v3, current

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeJul 12th 2024

    An analogue of an invariant open subset in a G-space in noncommutative algebraic geometry, where an action of a group is replaced by coaction of a Hopf algebra on an algebra “of functions” is the notion of coaction compatible localization and the functions on the space of orbits within the invariant subset are in that case replaced by localized coinvariants.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorRodMcGuire
    • CommentTimeJul 12th 2024

    A subset SS of XX is called invariant if and only if for each m∈Mm\in M, m −1(S)=Sm^{-1}(S)=S. Equivalently, if for every x∈Xx\in X we have that x∈Sx\in S if and only if f(x)∈Sf(x)\in S.

    What is this unexplained ff in “f(x)∈Sf(x)\in S”? I guess that it is quantified to mean any mm but why don’t you just use mm?

    variants of the same definition which differ for the case of arbitrary monoids. In particular, sometimes one calls a subset S⊆XS\subseteq X invariant if and only if m −1(S)⊆Sm^{-1}(S)\subseteq S, i.e. if for every x∈Sx\in S, f(x)∈Sf(x)\in S as well. (Without requiring that if f(x)∈Sf(x)\in S, then x∈Sx\in S.) In other words, it is a set “which we cannot leave” under the specified action.

    this seems confused. For a subset SS closed under the action of a monoid the requirement is that for every s∈Ss\in S then f(s)∈Sf(s)\in S, which means that S⊆m −1(S)S\subseteq m^{-1}(S). There may be x∈Xx\in X with f(x)∈Sf(x)\in S without x∈Sx\in S.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorPaoloPerrone
    • CommentTimeJul 12th 2024

    Oh, thank you, let me correct.

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorRodMcGuire
    • CommentTimeJul 12th 2024

    For a fixed monoid MM or group GG isn’t an “invariant set” just a subobject in the corresponding category of M-sets or category of G-sets?

    (I know little about those categories and not much about the different types of G-sets.)

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorPaoloPerrone
    • CommentTimeJul 13th 2024

    I believe that for monoids it should be exactly those sets SS for which if x∈Sx\in S, then m(x)∈Sm(x)\in S, which in the article are under “Variations on the definition”. (But I’m not an expert either.)

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 13th 2024

    re #8: that certainly sounds right!

1 to 10 of 10

  1.