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 nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory object 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.
   • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
   • CommentTimeOct 9th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: Todd_Trimble
   Format: MarkdownItexI was looking again at [[equilogical space]]; I wasn't able to determine the importance of the $T_0$ condition either from the page or from looking over the article Equilogical Spaces by Bauer, Birkedal, and Scott. (As best I can tell, it might be because they want to study the connection with algebraic lattices, as opposed to some preorder analogue of algebraic lattices.) From the point of view of desirable properties of the category of equilogical spaces, is there any particular advantage to using $T_0$-spaces as opposed to arbitrary spaces?

   I was looking again at equilogical space; I wasn’t able to determine the importance of the $T_0$ condition either from the page or from looking over the article Equilogical Spaces by Bauer, Birkedal, and Scott. (As best I can tell, it might be because they want to study the connection with algebraic lattices, as opposed to some preorder analogue of algebraic lattices.) From the point of view of desirable properties of the category of equilogical spaces, is there any particular advantage to using $T_0$-spaces as opposed to arbitrary spaces?

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeOct 10th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexNot as far as I know. I added some comments to [[equilogical space]] about their relationship to the exact completion of Top.

   Not as far as I know.

   I added some comments to equilogical space about their relationship to the exact completion of Top.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
   • CommentTimeOct 10th 2011
   • (edited Oct 10th 2011)
   • PermaLink
   Author: TobyBartels
   Format: MarkdownItexPerhaps Dana Scott did want the equivalence relation to relate to the topology to the extent that topologically equivalent points would be equivalent. Then he realised that (assuming choice) the category of such spaces was equivalent to its full subcategory of $T_0$ spaces, and this description was simpler (or at least more familiar).

   Perhaps Dana Scott did want the equivalence relation to relate to the topology to the extent that topologically equivalent points would be equivalent. Then he realised that (assuming choice) the category of such spaces was equivalent to its full subcategory of $T_0$ spaces, and this description was simpler (or at least more familiar).