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 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 sheaves 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.
   • CommentAuthorzskoda
   • CommentTimeNov 2nd 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: zskoda
   Format: MarkdownItexI have separated [[Eilenberg-Watts theorem]] from [[abelian category]] and added the references and MR links. One of the queries from the [[abelian category]] is moved here with backpointer there. I cleaned up some typoi. The following discussion is about to which extent abelian categories are a general context for [[homological algebra]]. > _Zoran_: I strongly disagree with the first sentence, particularly with THE (it is THE general context for linear algebra and homological algebra). MacLane was (according to Janelidze) looking whole life for what is the general context for homological algebra, and the current answer of expert are semi-abelian categories of Borceux and Janelidze, and homological categories...Linear algebra as well makes sense in many other contexts. This "idea' is to me very misleading. MacLane in 1950 was lead by the idea to axiomatize the categories which behave like abelian groups. Grothendieck wanted to unify on the obsrervation that the categories of abelian sheaves and categories of R-modules have the same setup for homological algebra as in Tohoku. > There is much linear algebra you can do with cokernels, for example, as well as much linear algebra which you can not do if you are not over a field for example. So, saying that abelian categories are distinguished is only among categories which have closest properties to abelian sheaves and R-modules, not among principles for homlogical algebra and linear algebra that uniquely (although the strong motivation was ever there). > [[Mike Shulman|Mike]]: I changed it to "a" general context; is that satisfactory? Once we have pages about those other notions, there can be links from here to there. > _Toby_: I\'ve made the phrasing even weaker. Abelian categories are pretty cool, but (if you don\'t already have the examples that make it so useful) the definition is a fairly arbitrary place to draw the line. > _Tim_ : I note that sometimes we (collectively) take parts of a discussion and turn it into part of an entry, because of that I would like to note two points here. The first is that the accepted first definition of semi-abelian category is in the Janelidze, Marki, and Tholen (JPAA, but we have a link on the semi-abelian entry.) > The other point is that Tim Van der Linden's thesis does a lot of stuff that could be useful. It is available online <http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0607100>

   I have separated Eilenberg-Watts theorem from abelian category and added the references and MR links. One of the queries from the abelian category is moved here with backpointer there. I cleaned up some typoi.

   The following discussion is about to which extent abelian categories are a general context for homological algebra.

   Zoran: I strongly disagree with the first sentence, particularly with THE (it is THE general context for linear algebra and homological algebra). MacLane was (according to Janelidze) looking whole life for what is the general context for homological algebra, and the current answer of expert are semi-abelian categories of Borceux and Janelidze, and homological categories…Linear algebra as well makes sense in many other contexts. This “idea’ is to me very misleading. MacLane in 1950 was lead by the idea to axiomatize the categories which behave like abelian groups. Grothendieck wanted to unify on the obsrervation that the categories of abelian sheaves and categories of R-modules have the same setup for homological algebra as in Tohoku.

   There is much linear algebra you can do with cokernels, for example, as well as much linear algebra which you can not do if you are not over a field for example. So, saying that abelian categories are distinguished is only among categories which have closest properties to abelian sheaves and R-modules, not among principles for homlogical algebra and linear algebra that uniquely (although the strong motivation was ever there).

   Mike: I changed it to “a” general context; is that satisfactory? Once we have pages about those other notions, there can be links from here to there.

   Toby: I've made the phrasing even weaker. Abelian categories are pretty cool, but (if you don't already have the examples that make it so useful) the definition is a fairly arbitrary place to draw the line.

   Tim : I note that sometimes we (collectively) take parts of a discussion and turn it into part of an entry, because of that I would like to note two points here. The first is that the accepted first definition of semi-abelian category is in the Janelidze, Marki, and Tholen (JPAA, but we have a link on the semi-abelian entry.)

   The other point is that Tim Van der Linden’s thesis does a lot of stuff that could be useful. It is available online http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0607100