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
   • CommentTimeJan 5th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexfinally created [[strongly connected topos]] (nothing deep there, just terminology).

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

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeDec 6th 2011
   • (edited Dec 6th 2011)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexToday 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 $n$Lab hits, but nothing else. ;-)

   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 $n$Lab hits, but nothing else. ;-)

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeDec 6th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexI forget too, if I ever knew. Did the criticizers have any particular reasons for their criticism? In [this paper](http://www.tac.mta.ca/tac/volumes/25/3/25-03abs.html) Johnstone uses "stably locally connected".

   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”.

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeDec 6th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItex> 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.

   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.

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeDec 7th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexHuh, I don't think I've encountered that.

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

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeDec 7th 2011
   • (edited Dec 7th 2011)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexOkay, I have checked: the commenter's point is that "strong" in the context of adjunctions $(f_! \dashv f^*)$ suggests that it refers to the internal hom condition $$ [f_! X, Y] \simeq f_* [X, f^* Y] \,. $$ But in discussion we decided that also in this sense "strongly connected" is not so bad after all: a connected geometric morphism $f$ such that $f_!$ exists and preserves products implies Frobenius reciprocity for $f_*$, 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](http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/locally%20connected%20geometric%20morphism#StrongAdjunctions) and [here](http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/strongly+connected+topos#Terminology).

   Okay, I have checked:

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

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

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

7. • CommentRowNumber7.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeDec 7th 2011
   • (edited Dec 7th 2011)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexHrm, 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.

   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.

8. • CommentRowNumber8.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeMar 5th 2012
   • (edited Mar 5th 2012)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexHere 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.

   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.

9. • CommentRowNumber9.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeMar 5th 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItex[Johnstone](http://www.tac.mta.ca/tac/volumes/25/3/25-03abs.html) calls it "stably locally connected". Presumably he has some reason, but I don't know what it is.

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

10. • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeNov 16th 2016
    • PermaLink
    Author: Mike Shulman
    Format: MarkdownItexComing 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](http://www.tac.mta.ca/tac/volumes/30/26/30-26abs.html) (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 $f_!$ having "stable units", giving another justification for the terminology.

    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 $f_!$ having “stable units”, giving another justification for the terminology.

11. • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorvarkor
    • CommentTimeDec 18th 2022
    • PermaLink
    Author: varkor
    Format: MarkdownItexChanged name to Johnstone's terminology, following the discussion in the comments. <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/diff/stably+locally+connected+topos/6">diff</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/stably+locally+connected+topos/6">v6</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/stably+locally+connected+topos">current</a>

    Changed name to Johnstone’s terminology, following the discussion in the comments.

    diff, v6, current