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.
   • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
   • CommentTimeSep 1st 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: TobyBartels
   Format: MarkdownItexIs there a term for a category such that for every object $x$ the poset $Sub(x)$ of subobjects of $x$ is a complete lattice? Actually, I really only care that it's a complete inf-lattice; (unless the category is well-powered, $sub(x)$ might be large and thus not necessarily cocomplete even if complete).

   Is there a term for a category such that for every object $x$ the poset $Sub(x)$ of subobjects of $x$ is a complete lattice? Actually, I really only care that it’s a complete inf-lattice; (unless the category is well-powered, $sub(x)$ might be large and thus not necessarily cocomplete even if complete).

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorzskoda
   • CommentTimeSep 1st 2011
   • (edited Sep 1st 2011)
   • PermaLink
   Author: zskoda
   Format: MarkdownItex$Sub(x)$ is not necessarily equivalent to a set, hence calling it a poset requires some assumptions. Edit: oh I see, you are calling it large. OK.

   $Sub(x)$ is not necessarily equivalent to a set, hence calling it a poset requires some assumptions. Edit: oh I see, you are calling it large. OK.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
   • CommentTimeSep 1st 2011
   • (edited Sep 1st 2011)
   • PermaLink
   Author: TobyBartels
   Format: MarkdownItexA related issue is why a geometric category should be well powered, which Mike had asked about in a query box at [[geometric category]]. I've replied there, suggesting that this (the equivalence between completeness and cocompleteness of $Sub(x)$) may be the reason.

   A related issue is why a geometric category should be well powered, which Mike had asked about in a query box at geometric category. I’ve replied there, suggesting that this (the equivalence between completeness and cocompleteness of $Sub(x)$) may be the reason.

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeSep 2nd 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexRe: 1, there might be, but I don't think I know it. I have heard something like "mono-complete" (and more generally "$\mathcal{M}$-complete" for a class $\mathcal{M}$ of subobjects) to mean that *all* (not necessarily small) intersections of subobjects exist — or $\mathcal{E}$-cocomplete in the dual case. Re: 3, yes, that is a nice thing to have — but is it sensible to want that to come along with the adjective "geometric", since [[geometric logic]] includes infinite disjunction but not infinite conjunction?

   Re: 1, there might be, but I don’t think I know it. I have heard something like “mono-complete” (and more generally “$\mathcal{M}$-complete” for a class $\mathcal{M}$ of subobjects) to mean that all (not necessarily small) intersections of subobjects exist — or $\mathcal{E}$-cocomplete in the dual case.

   Re: 3, yes, that is a nice thing to have — but is it sensible to want that to come along with the adjective “geometric”, since geometric logic includes infinite disjunction but not infinite conjunction?

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
   • CommentTimeSep 2nd 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: TobyBartels
   Format: MarkdownItexThanks, and upon reflection, mono-completeness is really what I need when well-poweredness fails (so my original question was not quite correct). I can't really justify wanting geometric categories to be well-powered; in fact, I'm inclined to agree with you. I only suggest what might have been somebody's motivation.

   Thanks, and upon reflection, mono-completeness is really what I need when well-poweredness fails (so my original question was not quite correct).

   I can’t really justify wanting geometric categories to be well-powered; in fact, I’m inclined to agree with you. I only suggest what might have been somebody’s motivation.

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeSep 3rd 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexI added some discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of well-poweredness at [[geometric category]], replacing the query box.

   I added some discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of well-poweredness at geometric category, replacing the query box.