Not signed in (Sign In)

Start a new discussion

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-categories 2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry beauty bundles calculus categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science connection constructive constructive-mathematics cosmology definitions deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry differential-topology digraphs duality education elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration foundations functional-analysis functor galois-theory gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck 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 infinity integration integration-theory k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic manifolds mathematics measure-theory modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology multicategories noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pasting philosophy physics planar 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-theory subobject superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory 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).
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeNov 18th 2010

    edited retract a little

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorHarry Gindi
    • CommentTimeNov 19th 2010

    I think we should emphasize that splittings and retractions are subtly different. One is a “left inverse to an inclusion” and the other is a “right inverse to a projection” (I may have gotten my “handedness” screwed up, but I’m sure you get the idea).

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeNov 19th 2010

    Go ahead, then…

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeJan 26th 2011
    • (edited Jan 26th 2011)

    In homotopy theory there is also the terminology space XX is dominated by space YY (or by a class of spaces) if XX is a retract of YY in the homotopy category. I do not know how to name an entry (domination is a used term but more rarely and more artifically than the phrase XX is dominated by YY). There is also “shape dominated by” and alike variants.

    Edit: maybe one should write the section under retract and just put redirects like “dominated by”, though retract is general categorical page and we are here in more specific homotopy context.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeJan 26th 2011
    • (edited Jan 26th 2011)

    If you want a page title that fits with the naming conventions, maybe dominated space? That makes it sound like a kind of space (analogous to, say, connected space), which it is not. But English grammar is more flexible than that interpretation.

    But if you put it on retract, then you can add any phrases as redirects, nouns or otherwise, as long as they don’t seem to mean anything else. (See the problems with some adjectival redirects.)

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorgejza.jenca
    • CommentTimeMar 29th 2016
    • (edited Mar 29th 2016)

    Yesterday I stumbled upon the following fact: if the underlying category 𝒞\mathcal{C} has coproducts, then retractions can be considered as algebras for a monad on the arrrow category 𝒞 2\mathcal{C}^{\,2}.

    Let f:ABf:A\to B be an object of 𝒞 2\mathcal{C}^{\,2}. Define T(f):ABBT(f):A\oplus B\to B to be the arrow determined by the cocone f,id Bf,id_B – this is the free retraction generated by ff. The η\eta and μ\mu are then the only possible thing. This is a monad. It turns out that, given ff, there exists an algebra (commutative square) T(f)fT(f)\to f if and only if ff is a retraction. Moreover, the algebra is determined by a choice of section i:BAi:B\to A.

    I would like to add this information to nlab, but I am not sure where it belongs. There are at least three different pages dealing with retracts: retract, retraction, section.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMar 29th 2016

    Thanks. The keywords retract and retraction should better point to the same entry. I have merged them now and made both keywords point to the same entry. That entry would be the canonical place to add material.

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeMar 29th 2016
    • (edited Mar 29th 2016)

    I don’t think that’s quite the canonical place. Better IMO would be co-slice category or undercategory; such an observation likely exists in dual form on the Lab at slice category, since people use it all the time.

    In other words, A𝒞A \downarrow \mathcal{C} is the category of algebras of the monad A+A + -, just as a slice category 𝒞A\mathcal{C} \downarrow A is the category of coalgebras for the comonad A×A \times -.

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJun 28th 2018

    made explicit the lemma (here) that a left inverse with a left inverse is an inverse.

    diff, v22, current

Add your comments
  • Please log in or leave your comment as a "guest post". If commenting as a "guest", please include your name in the message as a courtesy. Note: only certain categories allow guest posts.
  • To produce a hyperlink to an nLab entry, simply put double square brackets around its name, e.g. [[category]]. To use (La)TeX mathematics in your post, make sure Markdown+Itex is selected below and put your mathematics between dollar signs as usual. Only a subset of the usual TeX math commands are accepted: see here for a list.

  • (Help)