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 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 history homological homological-algebra 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 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 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
    • CommentTimeJul 6th 2011

    have added to Topos in the section on limits of toposes the description of the pullback of toposes by pushout of their sites of definition.

  1. I have a question about colimits in Topos\mathbf{Topos}.

    A typical topos looks like Set\mathbf{Set}, and is therefore a large category. So Topos\mathbf{Topos} is presumably a Very large category. So we might hope that Topos\mathbf{Topos} has all large colimits. But Moerdijk only states that Topos\mathbf{Topos} has all small colimits. Of course Moerdijk might be using some different set theory conventions.

    So exactly how large can colimits in Topos\mathbf{Topos} be?

  2. With logical morphisms it will definitely have large colimits, because the category is then algebraic. I am not sure about the case of geometric morphisms.
    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeOct 5th 2018

    The page Topos is about the geometric case. It’s true that ToposTopos is set-theoretically a very large 2-category, but its sub-2-category of Grothendieck toposes (which is the one that Moerdijk is talking about) is essentially only large (though not locally small), because it is equivalent to a 2-category whose objects are small sites. So it’s not reasonable to expect it to have large colimits.

    The 2-category of elementary toposes and geometric morphisms is quite ill-behaved in general; it does have some limits and colimits, but they are arguably somewhat accidental. To get good behavior you generally have to restrict to a slice category of bounded geometric morphisms over a fixed base topos, in which case things look very much again like the Grothendieck case.

  3. Thanks! I was thinking purely about the case of Grothendieck toposes and geometric morphisms, but I hadn’t realised that sites had to be small in the definition of Grothendieck topos. That make things work out much more easily.

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)