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 categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-theory cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics comma complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science connection constructive cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration foundations functional-analysis functor galois-theory gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry goodwillie-calculus 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 history homological homological-algebra homology homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory k-theory lie lie-theory limit limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal-logic model model-category-theory monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nonassociative noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pasting philosophy physics planar 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 subobject 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.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeJun 28th 2011

    Added to sequential topological space the observation that the category of such is cartesian closed.

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeJun 28th 2011
    • (edited Jun 28th 2011)

    This surprises me. Without Hausdorff criterium ? What is the inner hom ? Usual C(X,Z)C(X,Z) in compact-open topology ?

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeJun 28th 2011
    • (edited Jun 28th 2011)

    Zoran, I only recently learned of this result myself. A reference for this fact is given in the references at convenient category of topological spaces: see the paper by Escardo, Lawson, and (Alex) Simpson, all acknowledged researchers in categorical topology. They are not the first to prove the result, I understand, but they did set out a general context for which this result is a special case.

    I don’t think the Hausdorff condition is required. My understanding is that one basically takes the compact-open topology (this might have to be adjusted in the non-Hausdorff case though; I’ll explain in a moment) on the function space, and then adjusts this function space topology by coreflecting back from TopTop to sequential spaces (i.e., applying the right adjoint to the inclusion), just as one does in the compactly generated case.

    (As I say, there may be extra fiddlyness in the non-Hausdorff case, but here the correct function space topology is described in the article on exponential laws for spaces, under the subsection on core-compact spaces, which precisely characterize the exponentiable objects in TopTop, here.)

    The general context of ELS is that they consider a class of TopTop-exponentiable spaces 𝒞\mathcal{C} with the property that the product of any two spaces in 𝒞\mathcal{C} is a TopTop-colimit of spaces in 𝒞\mathcal{C}. The theorem is that the full subcategory of TopTop whose objects are TopTop-colimits of spaces in 𝒞\mathcal{C} is then cartesian closed. This applies in particular if we take 𝒞\mathcal{C} to consist of just the one-point compactification of \mathbb{N} with the discrete topology; here the resulting cartesian closed category is that of sequential spaces.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJun 28th 2011

    I don’t suppose that sequential spaces are an exponential ideal in subsequential spaces?

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeJun 28th 2011

    Todd, you are bringing beautiful stuff (I thought recently after going into much detail about nonHausdorff compactly generated spaces that I understand somewhat in detail the exponential law, but now this beautiful general theorem is a whole vast area :)).

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeJun 29th 2011

    @Mike: well, I don’t know! But it doesn’t seem at all implausible (and it would be interesting and possibly original if true): as you know, sequential spaces are a reflective subcategory of subsequential spaces, and subsequential spaces form a quasitopos (which of course is cartesian closed), so all we would need is that the reflection preserves products, right? Hm…

    @Zoran: what’s also intriguing is how soft the relevant proofs of ELS are, which makes me wonder about the true generality of the result. Could something like this be true for much more general categories besides TopTop? I don’t know, but this looks interesting.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
    • CommentTimeJun 29th 2011
    • (edited Jun 29th 2011)

    Interestingly ELS are often thought of as theoretical computer scientists, perhaps more than categorical topologists.

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeApr 6th 2017
    • (edited Apr 8th 2017)

    I wrote about why metric spaces can’t be proved to be sequential (not even the real line) in constructive mathematics.

    Actually, all that I really showed is how the usual proof uses excluded middle (and also countable choice). It would be nice to find, say, a specific topos in which the real line is not sequential. (It would be even better to find two examples: one in which excluded middle holds but countable choice fails, and one in which countable choice holds but excluded middle fails.)

    One might also hope for a constructive version of sequentiality: something classically equivalent to the usual definition, while constructively holding of all first-countable spaces (or at least metrizable spaces). But I doubt it; constructive analysis usually just bites the bullet and uses nets.

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeApr 6th 2017

    I presume you meant “can not be proved to be sequential”.

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeApr 8th 2017

    Yes, fixed.

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeApr 8th 2017

    The first topos that comes to my mind to look at is the topos of sheaves on the space of real numbers, in which R dR_d is the sheaf of continuous real-valued functions. What does it mean for a sub-sheaf of that to be open or sequentially open?

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)