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.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeNov 9th 2010
   • (edited Nov 9th 2010)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexI created [[Lawvere distribution]]. I decided to formulate it directly in the $(\infty,1)$-topos setup, because 1. there the analogy with distributions makes (even) better sense, as we can invoke $\infty$-groupoid cardinality to think of (tame) $(\infty,1)$-sheaves as $\mathbb{R}$-valued functions; 1. it reproduces then a special case of the discussion at [[Pr(∞,1)Cat]] and harmonizes with the interpretation in terms of $\infty$-vector spaces as described there.

   I created Lawvere distribution. I decided to formulate it directly in the $(\infty,1)$-topos setup, because

   1. there the analogy with distributions makes (even) better sense, as we can invoke $\infty$-groupoid cardinality to think of (tame) $(\infty,1)$-sheaves as $\mathbb{R}$-valued functions;

   2. it reproduces then a special case of the discussion at Pr(∞,1)Cat and harmonizes with the interpretation in terms of $\infty$-vector spaces as described there.

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
   • CommentTimeApr 14th 2020
   • (edited Apr 15th 2020)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Dmitri Pavlov
   Format: MarkdownItexWhat exactly is the difference between a [[Lawvere distribution]] and a [[cosheaf]] (valued in a [[topos]])? We have two different entries for them, but the definitions appear to be identical.

   What exactly is the difference between a Lawvere distribution and a cosheaf (valued in a topos)? We have two different entries for them, but the definitions appear to be identical.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
   • CommentTimeApr 15th 2020
   • PermaLink
   Author: Dmitri Pavlov
   Format: MarkdownItexBoth articles were (mostly) written around November 2010 by Urs Schreiber. So I guess the above question is mostly addressed to Urs. Would it be appropriate to merge the two articles?

   Both articles were (mostly) written around November 2010 by Urs Schreiber. So I guess the above question is mostly addressed to Urs.

   Would it be appropriate to merge the two articles?

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeApr 15th 2020
   • (edited Apr 15th 2020)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexIt's always about the most useful way to retrieve information. If you think people looking for Lawvere distributions would benefit most from discovering the concept inside an entry on cosheaves, and vice versa, then best to merge the entries. If instead it helps to adopt a certain focus (as in [[concepts with an attitude]]) then best to keep them separate. Also it's about how much energy you are going to invest. If you have lots of energy to do a major edit on the topic, then major re-arrangements could be useful. In the extreme case that you have the energy to do full justice to the topics, it could well be indicated to erase both entries and start over from scratch. If however you don't plan to do any substantial edits to either entry, then a mere shuffling around of the existing material may be unlikely to improve the situation for the reader. So it depends. :-)

   It’s always about the most useful way to retrieve information. If you think people looking for Lawvere distributions would benefit most from discovering the concept inside an entry on cosheaves, and vice versa, then best to merge the entries. If instead it helps to adopt a certain focus (as in concepts with an attitude) then best to keep them separate.

   Also it’s about how much energy you are going to invest. If you have lots of energy to do a major edit on the topic, then major re-arrangements could be useful. In the extreme case that you have the energy to do full justice to the topics, it could well be indicated to erase both entries and start over from scratch. If however you don’t plan to do any substantial edits to either entry, then a mere shuffling around of the existing material may be unlikely to improve the situation for the reader.

   So it depends. :-)

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
   • CommentTimeApr 15th 2020
   • PermaLink
   Author: Dmitri Pavlov
   Format: MarkdownItexAdded details to the definition. Made connection to cosheaves explicit. Corrected "finite colimits" to "small colimits" in one place. Added an example. <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/diff/Lawvere+distribution/9">diff</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/Lawvere+distribution/9">v9</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Lawvere+distribution">current</a>

   Added details to the definition. Made connection to cosheaves explicit. Corrected “finite colimits” to “small colimits” in one place. Added an example.

   diff, v9, current

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
   • CommentTimeApr 15th 2020
   • PermaLink
   Author: Dmitri Pavlov
   Format: MarkdownItexFor now, I limited myself to making the connection to cosheaves explicit.

   For now, I limited myself to making the connection to cosheaves explicit.