Not signed in (Sign In)

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 book bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics comma 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 finite 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 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

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
    • CommentTimeMay 18th 2011

    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.

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

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

    Jens Hemelaer

    diff, v12, current

  3. 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 Top T 1\mathbf{Top}_{T_1} are ?


    diff, v13, current

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeAug 5th 2019

    I find the hypothesis “YY is T 1T_1” curious. I would have expected instead something like “XX is sober and YY is T 0T_0”, with the proof proceeding by regarding a point of YY as a point of Sh(Y)Sh(Y), lifting it somehow to a point of Sh(X)Sh(X), and using sobriety to extract a point of XX, whose image in YY is isomorphic to the original one, hence equal by T 0T_0. Actually it seems that would only use the “other half” of sobriety for XX (existence of points rather than their uniqueness). Is there a chance of such an argument also working?

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeAug 6th 2019

    For what it’s worth, I will answer the question of #4: I will argue that epimorphisms in Top T 1Top_{T_1} are just the surjections.

    Suppose f:XYf: X \to Y in Top T 1Top_{T_1} is not surjective, and take a point yYim(f)y \in Y \setminus im(f). I will argue that every point of the ordinary topological pushout Y XYY \sqcup_X Y is closed, i.e., this pushout object lives in T 1T_1 so that the evident fork

    XfYi 2i 1Y XYX \stackrel{f}{\to} Y \stackrel{\overset{i_1}{\to}}{\underset{i_2}{\to}} Y \sqcup_X Y

    lives in Top T 1Top_{T_1}. In that case, since i 1f=i 1fi_1 \circ f = i_1 \circ f but i 1(y)i 2(y)i_1(y) \neq i_2(y), we would conclude ff is not epic in Top T 1Top_{T_1}.

    So we must verify that each point of Y XYY \sqcup_X Y is closed. The points of Y XYY \sqcup_X Y are certain equivalence classes of points of YYY \sqcup Y, so we verify that the equivalence classes are closed in YYY \sqcup Y. But each equivalence class consists of either a single point (the case where the point doesn’t “come from XX”), or two points (a point of the form f(x)f(x) living in the first summand YY, and the same but living in the second summand). But finite subsets of YYY \sqcup Y are closed since this space is T 1T_1, so all these equivalence classes are closed, and we are done.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorThomas Holder
    • CommentTimeAug 6th 2019

    Thanks, Todd! When I asked I was thinking of surjective geometrical morphisms as “epimorphisms” in 𝔗𝔬𝔭\mathfrak{Top} 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