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 beauty bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality education elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration 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 lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology multicategories 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 science set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory 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
    • CommentTimeSep 4th 2011

    I have started an article well-founded coalgebra, where I’m trying to put together some things I’ve learned while reading Paul Taylor’s work. All comments welcome.

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeSep 4th 2011

    Ha ha, “well-illustrated”

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeSep 5th 2011

    Got the link to ’coalgebra for an endofunctor’ working by changing ’of’ to ’for’. At that page we seem to switch between ’for’ and ’over’. Trivial stuff, but is there a best choice out of ’coalgebra of/for/over an endofunctor’?

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeSep 5th 2011

    For making the links work, it’s most important to put the redirects at the page to which we are linking (which I have now done).

    In this case I like “of” best. For “over”, I would want something that feels more like a (co)algebra to be over, such as a comonad. I don’t understand why people want to use “for”.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeSep 5th 2011
    • (edited Sep 5th 2011)

    I have added some more hyperlinks, a TOC and a floating Context. Also I added a link to the entry from coalgebra, such that it can be found by people who don’t yet know that it exists.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeSep 5th 2011

    You mean that you added a link from coalgebra for an endofunctor.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeSep 5th 2011

    Yes, right, sorry.

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeJan 30th 2016

    I added a bit more to well-founded coalgebra, to help create an opening for further development.

    In particular I added two observations that, while trivial, I hadn’t seen mentioned elsewhere and which casts a suggestive light I think. Recall that for an endofunctor T:EET: E \to E, a TT-algebra is Peano if every TT-subalgebra inclusion is an isomorphism (the classical case being the endofunctor T:X1+XT: X \mapsto 1 + X on a topos, where a Peano TT-algebra is called a Peano natural numbers object). Now, if (X,θ:XTX)(X, \theta: X \to T X) is a TT-coalgebra, then we can form an endofunctor on the slice E/XE/X as an evident composite

    E/XT *E/TXθ *E/XE/X \stackrel{T_\ast}{\longrightarrow} E/T X \stackrel{\theta^\ast}{\longrightarrow} E/X

    and of course the terminal object 1 X:XX1_X: X \to X is automatically a θ *T *\theta^\ast T_\ast-algebra. The first observation is that a subobject i:UXi: U \to X is an inductive subobject of the TT-coalgebra XX iff ii is a θ *T *\theta^\ast T_\ast-subalgebra of 1 X1_X. The second observation is that the coalgebra XX is well-founded iff 1 X1_X is a Peano θ *T *\theta^\ast T_\ast-algebra.

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJan 31st 2016

    Is being a Peano TT-algebra the same as being a surjective image of the initial TT-algebra?

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeJan 31st 2016

    No; for example there are many surjective images of the natural numbers object \mathbb{N} in a topos as TT-algebra over T(X)=1+XT(X) = 1 + X, but in a topos a Peano NNO must be the usual initial algebra type of NNO.

    I need to think more on what (if any) is the real significance of the observation in #8.

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJan 31st 2016

    Hmm, it seems to me that the terminal set with its unique TT-algebra structure (for T(X)=1+XT(X)=1+X) is Peano, since its only proper subset is empty and that is not a TT-subalgebra. What am I missing?

    • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeJan 31st 2016
    • (edited Jan 31st 2016)

    (Redacted.)

    Oh, duh. I was thinking Peano postulates for N in a topos when I said that, but forgot about half of the postulates. :-P

    I don’t know off-hand the answer to your question in #9. But in the meantime I should at least name this concept something else besides “Peano”. Just to have a placeholder until somethin better comes along, I’ve revised the article to name this subalgebra property “semi-Peano”.

    • CommentRowNumber13.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeFeb 1st 2016

    It’s kind of like being simple

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)