Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below
Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
I think you should call it n-telechy …
Thanks, David.
Ignoring my own advice I'll remark here, instead of implementing it immediately, that there are also notions of "completions" of things that are not categories, of course. Maybe the entry should be renamed to "completion of a category"?
Jon,
just for your information, I didn't get that one either. Probably my German lack of humour, or possibly my German lack of English language skill. I have a guess, but even with that I don't see how this is at all related to David's message.
But in any case, can't we agree that we try to reduce the irrelevant exchanges here a bit, at least as long as it isn't clear that we all mostly share the same enjoyment for them?
<div>
Urs wrote <br/><br/><blockquote><br/><br/>Maybe the entry should be renamed to "completion of a category"?<br/><br/></blockquote><br/><br/>Some of the entries apply to enriched categories, so it could be "completion of an enriched category". On the other hand, the one current example applying to something more special than a category is the profinite completion of a group. But one can profinitely complete a wider range of things - isn't this pro-completion? And we need ind-completion too.<br/><br/>Also, aren't there completion constructions which don't have 'completion' in their names?
</div>
Also, aren't there completion constructions which don't have 'completion' in their names?
Sure; in general, I would consider any regular mono-reflector to be a completion. And then there's algebraic completion, which I would not consider really a completion (because of its inferior form of uniqueness, which stops it from being reflective).
I added some remarks to completion about completions in general and how the distinction between "completion" and "free cocompletion" relates to "property" vs "property-like structure". The organization is suboptimal but I don't know how to fix it right now; please refactor if anyone has a better idea.
I added a couple of examples and links, including a counterexample to argue that a ‘completion’ should be monic.
I added pro-completion of a category and Stone-Cech compactification. Is the unit of the reflection for the profinite completion of a group monic?
David, are you wondering about more examples of borderline cases? Like reflectors that aren't monic or property-like structure that isn't a property?
I want to call the last item ‘filter completion’, although ‘filter’ can be rather overloaded.
"filter completion" is of course the obvious dual of "ideal completion." Not sure whether I think it's a good name though.
I don't think I've ever seen anyone write about the dual of ideal completion, but I seem to recall that maybe pro-objects whose transition maps are epi are sometimes better behaved than arbitrary ones? Perhaps sometimes when people work with "good pro-objects" they are really working in this "filter completion"?
this is becoming a great page, guys, neat
1 to 17 of 17