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-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics 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 finite foundations functional-analysis functor galois-theory 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 lie-theory limit limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic manifolds mathematics measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nforum nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number 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 string string-theory 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
    • CommentTimeJan 5th 2011

    finally created strongly connected topos (nothing deep there, just terminology).

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeDec 6th 2011
    • (edited Dec 6th 2011)

    Today I received mild criticism for the choice of terminology “strongly connected” in strongly connected topos. I forget where this terminology originates. Googling for it by now shows tons of nnLab hits, but nothing else. ;-)

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeDec 6th 2011

    I forget too, if I ever knew. Did the criticizers have any particular reasons for their criticism? In this paper Johnstone uses “stably locally connected”.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeDec 6th 2011

    Did the criticizers have any particular reasons for their criticism?

    The claim was that “strong” is more commonly used for a different property of geometric morphisms. I think the claim was that it should be used for properties related to boundedness. I’ll check again.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeDec 7th 2011

    Huh, I don’t think I’ve encountered that.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeDec 7th 2011
    • (edited Dec 7th 2011)

    Okay, I have checked:

    the commenter’s point is that “strong” in the context of adjunctions (f !f *)(f_! \dashv f^*) suggests that it refers to the internal hom condition

    [f !X,Y]f *[X,f *Y]. [f_! X, Y] \simeq f_* [X, f^* Y] \,.

    But in discussion we decided that also in this sense “strongly connected” is not so bad after all: a connected geometric morphism ff such that f !f_! exists and preserves products implies Frobenius reciprocity for f *f_*, which in turn implies the above.

    (All of which is of course closely related to what we have been discussing lately.)

    For the record, I have added comments to this effect here and here.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeDec 7th 2011
    • (edited Dec 7th 2011)

    Hrm, if any locally connected geometric morphism satisfies that internal-hom condition, that seems to me to be an argument against using “strongly connected” for something more than that.

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMar 5th 2012
    • (edited Mar 5th 2012)

    Here a vastly belated reaction to the above exchange:

    Hrm, if any locally connected geometric morphism satisfies that internal-hom condition, that seems to me to be an argument against using “strongly connected” for something more than that.

    Yes, true.

    Does anyone feel like brainstorming what alternative terminology might be good?

    My problem is that the important effects of this condition that I know of are all somewhat technical. None of them really lends itself to a crisp term here. Or so it seems.

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeMar 5th 2012

    Johnstone calls it “stably locally connected”. Presumably he has some reason, but I don’t know what it is.

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeNov 16th 2016

    Coming back to this thread almost five years later, I suggest that we switch to Johnstone’s terminology (“stably locally connected”). I still can’t see any reason for “strongly connected”, nor do I see any citations for that terminology anywhere else, and as pointed out above it’s actually somewhat misleading. Lawvere and Menni (p929) report that Johnstone says his term was chosen by analogy with “stably locally compact”, since “connected objects are closed under finite products” is similar to “compact sets are closed under finite intersections”. Lawvere and Menni also observe that for a connected locally connected geometric morphism, stable local connectedness is equivalent to the reflector f !f_! having “stable units”, giving another justification for the terminology.

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)