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.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeMay 18th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexat [[surjective geometric morphism]] I have spelled out in detail most of the proof of the various equivalent characterizations, and all of the proof of the statement that geometric surjections are comonadic.

   at surjective geometric morphism I have spelled out in detail most of the proof of the various equivalent characterizations, and all of the proof of the statement that geometric surjections are comonadic.

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorIngoBlechschmidt
   • CommentTimeFeb 14th 2018
   • PermaLink
   Author: IngoBlechschmidt
   Format: MarkdownItexAdded to _[[surjective geometric morphism]]_ and to _[[connected topos]]_ that any connected geometric morphism is surjective.

   Added to surjective geometric morphism and to connected topos that any connected geometric morphism is surjective.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthornLab edit announcer
   • CommentTimeAug 5th 2019
   • PermaLink
   Author: nLab edit announcer
   Format: MarkdownItexI added a necessary assumption in the proposition (this assumption is also in MacLane--Moerdijk). Jens Hemelaer <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/diff/surjective+geometric+morphism/12">diff</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/surjective+geometric+morphism/12">v12</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/surjective+geometric+morphism">current</a>

   I added a necessary assumption in the proposition (this assumption is also in MacLane–Moerdijk).

   Jens Hemelaer

   diff, v12, current

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthornLab edit announcer
   • CommentTimeAug 5th 2019
   • PermaLink
   Author: nLab edit announcer
   Format: MarkdownItexThanks! I added a reference to the page in MacLaneMoerdijk, a remark on the parallel case of injective maps and specified the precise dependencies in the equivalence. By the way, does anybody know off hand what the epimorphisms in $\mathbf{Top}_{T_1}$ are ? Anonymous <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/diff/surjective+geometric+morphism/13">diff</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/surjective+geometric+morphism/13">v13</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/surjective+geometric+morphism">current</a>

   Thanks! I added a reference to the page in MacLaneMoerdijk, a remark on the parallel case of injective maps and specified the precise dependencies in the equivalence.

   By the way, does anybody know off hand what the epimorphisms in are ?

   Anonymous

   diff, v13, current

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeAug 5th 2019
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexI find the hypothesis "$Y$ is $T_1$" curious. I would have expected instead something like "$X$ is sober and $Y$ is $T_0$", with the proof proceeding by regarding a point of $Y$ as a point of $Sh(Y)$, lifting it somehow to a point of $Sh(X)$, and using sobriety to extract a point of $X$, whose image in $Y$ is isomorphic to the original one, hence equal by $T_0$. Actually it seems that would only use the "other half" of sobriety for $X$ (existence of points rather than their uniqueness). Is there a chance of such an argument also working?

   I find the hypothesis “ is ” curious. I would have expected instead something like “ is sober and is ”, with the proof proceeding by regarding a point of as a point of , lifting it somehow to a point of , and using sobriety to extract a point of , whose image in is isomorphic to the original one, hence equal by . Actually it seems that would only use the “other half” of sobriety for (existence of points rather than their uniqueness). Is there a chance of such an argument also working?

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
   • CommentTimeAug 6th 2019
   • PermaLink
   Author: Todd_Trimble
   Format: MarkdownItexFor what it's worth, I will answer the question of #4: I will argue that epimorphisms in $Top_{T_1}$ are just the surjections. Suppose $f: X \to Y$ in $Top_{T_1}$ is not surjective, and take a point $y \in Y \setminus im(f)$. I will argue that every point of the ordinary topological pushout $Y \sqcup_X Y$ is closed, i.e., this pushout object lives in $T_1$ so that the evident fork $$X \stackrel{f}{\to} Y \stackrel{\overset{i_1}{\to}}{\underset{i_2}{\to}} Y \sqcup_X Y$$ lives in $Top_{T_1}$. In that case, since $i_1 \circ f = i_1 \circ f$ but $i_1(y) \neq i_2(y)$, we would conclude $f$ is not epic in $Top_{T_1}$. So we must verify that each point of $Y \sqcup_X Y$ is closed. The points of $Y \sqcup_X Y$ are certain equivalence classes of points of $Y \sqcup Y$, so we verify that the equivalence classes are closed in $Y \sqcup Y$. But each equivalence class consists of either a single point (the case where the point doesn't "come from $X$"), or two points (a point of the form $f(x)$ living in the first summand $Y$, and the same but living in the second summand). But finite subsets of $Y \sqcup Y$ are closed since this space is $T_1$, so all these equivalence classes are closed, and we are done.

   For what it’s worth, I will answer the question of #4: I will argue that epimorphisms in are just the surjections.

   Suppose in is not surjective, and take a point . I will argue that every point of the ordinary topological pushout is closed, i.e., this pushout object lives in so that the evident fork

   lives in . In that case, since but , we would conclude is not epic in .

   So we must verify that each point of is closed. The points of are certain equivalence classes of points of , so we verify that the equivalence classes are closed in . But each equivalence class consists of either a single point (the case where the point doesn’t “come from ”), or two points (a point of the form living in the first summand , and the same but living in the second summand). But finite subsets of are closed since this space is , so all these equivalence classes are closed, and we are done.

7. • CommentRowNumber7.
   • CommentAuthorThomas Holder
   • CommentTimeAug 6th 2019
   • PermaLink
   Author: Thomas Holder
   Format: MarkdownItexThanks, Todd! When I asked I was thinking of surjective geometrical morphisms as "epimorphisms" in $\mathfrak{Top}$ but meanwhile I stumbled over ex.4.4, p.133 in the 1977 elephant stating that they lack the epic cancellation property. <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/diff/surjective+geometric+morphism/14">diff</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/surjective+geometric+morphism/14">v14</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/surjective+geometric+morphism">current</a>

   Thanks, Todd! When I asked I was thinking of surjective geometrical morphisms as “epimorphisms” in but meanwhile I stumbled over ex.4.4, p.133 in the 1977 elephant stating that they lack the epic cancellation property.

   diff, v14, current