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 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

1. • CommentRowNumber1.
   • CommentAuthorYaron
   • CommentTimeDec 2nd 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Yaron
   Format: MarkdownItexSome time ago, I prepared a detailed (hopefully correct) summary on using the AFT for proving the cocompleteness of varieties of algebras (by providing a left adjoint for the diagonal functor). From glancing in Borceux (and in [[algebra over a Lawvere theory]]), I've seen that this can be proved in a different way for algebras over Lawvere theories (which I'm still not familiar with). The question is, in view of the fact that there is already an $n$Lab entry proving cocompleteness in a more modern language, is there a point in adding such a summary for varieties of algebras? I can think of some reasons to do so, but I prefer not to clutter the $n$Lab with entries that are considered useless by everyone else. Note also, that the summary in question assumes the foundations of CWM, and from the discussion in [[Categories Work]] I understood that these are not widely accepted by the set theory experts here in $n$Lab. Thanks, Yaron

   Some time ago, I prepared a detailed (hopefully correct) summary on using the AFT for proving the cocompleteness of varieties of algebras (by providing a left adjoint for the diagonal functor).

   From glancing in Borceux (and in algebra over a Lawvere theory), I’ve seen that this can be proved in a different way for algebras over Lawvere theories (which I’m still not familiar with). The question is, in view of the fact that there is already an $n$Lab entry proving cocompleteness in a more modern language, is there a point in adding such a summary for varieties of algebras? I can think of some reasons to do so, but I prefer not to clutter the $n$Lab with entries that are considered useless by everyone else.

   Note also, that the summary in question assumes the foundations of CWM, and from the discussion in Categories Work I understood that these are not widely accepted by the set theory experts here in $n$Lab.

   Thanks,

   Yaron

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeDec 2nd 2010
   • (edited Dec 2nd 2010)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexYou should go ahead and add that stuff somewhere. If you fear an existing entry my be cluttered up, just put a link there saying something like "A discussion of cocompleteness using xyz can be found [[here]]." and create a dedicated entry for your discusison. There is lots of space on the nLab. Any discussion that is considered useful by anyone can have its place somewhere here.

   You should go ahead and add that stuff somewhere. If you fear an existing entry my be cluttered up, just put a link there saying something like

   “A discussion of cocompleteness using xyz can be found here.”

   and create a dedicated entry for your discusison.

   There is lots of space on the nLab. Any discussion that is considered useful by anyone can have its place somewhere here.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorYaron
   • CommentTimeDec 2nd 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Yaron
   Format: MarkdownItexThanks. I'll do that.

   Thanks. I’ll do that.