Processing math: 100%
Not signed in (Sign In)

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 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

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).

nLab > Latest Changes: flat functor

Bottom of Page

1 to 18 of 18

  1.  
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 16th 2012
    • (edited Apr 16th 2012)

    I have added to flat functor right after the very first definition (“C→Set is flat if its category of elements is cofiltered”) a remark which spells out explicitly what this means in components. Just for convenience of the reader.

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 16th 2012
    • (edited Apr 16th 2012)

    I have added in the section Topos-valued functors right after the definition the remark that in a topos with enough points, internal flatness is stalkwise Set-flatness.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 16th 2012

    I noticed that any mention of Diaconescu’s theorem was missing from the entry flat functor, so I added a section.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeOct 18th 2012

    Here is a question, probably to Mike, on the section Site-valued functors:

    I may be too tired, but I have trouble parsing this here:

    {h:v→u|Thfactors through theF-image of some cone overD}

    What “Th”? Maybe I am mixed up.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorZhen Lin
    • CommentTimeOct 18th 2012

    It says “T is a cone over F∘D with vertex u”, so Th must be a cone over F∘D with vertex v.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeOct 18th 2012

    Maybe we could write h*T or the like.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeOct 18th 2012

    I think h*T would be confusing; that looks to me like h and T have the same codomain and we are pulling T back along h. Here the codomain of h is the domain of T and we are just composing every morphism in T with h.

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeOct 31st 2012
    • (edited Oct 31st 2012)

    There is really just one sensible way to interpret the notation, so it doesn’t really matter. I was a bit over-tired when I asked the above question.

    But nevertheless, let me remark: the notation “h*” has also the common interpretation of pullback in the sense of pullback of functions, functors, etc by precomposition with h. And this is what we do here.

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeOct 31st 2012
    • (edited Oct 31st 2012)

    Something different:

    somebody please give me a sanity check, it’s so easy to get mixed up about variances in this business:

    let

    Δ0→Δ

    be the functor into the simplex category out of the non-full subcategory of finite linear non-empty graphs (hence regard each Δ[n] as a sequence of n elementary edges and morphisms in Δ0 have to send elementary edges to elementary edges).

    This is a (representably) flat functor, right?

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeNov 3rd 2012

    Does that mean every morphism in Δ0 is an injection? If so, it doesn’t seem like it could possibly be flat. Consider the identity [1]→[1] and the projection [1]→[0]. If those were to factor through a span [1]←[n]→[0] in Δ0, then n would have to be 0 by injectivity, but then the composite [1]→[0]→[1] couldn’t be the identity.

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeNov 3rd 2012

    I added to the “representable flatness” section of flat functor an explicit description of what this means in terms of objects and morphisms.

    By the way, where did the words “transitivity” and “freeness” come from in Remark 1? I’ve never heard them used to describe those conditions before.

    • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorZhen Lin
    • CommentTimeNov 3rd 2012

    In the case where C is the delooping of a group G, “transitivity” and “freeness” reduce to exactly the usual “transitivity” and “freeness” axioms for a G-torsor.

    • CommentRowNumber13.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeNov 4th 2012

    Ah.

    Generally I think I am against importing words from group torsors to describe flat functors when they lose their original intuition thereby. Group torsors are such a special case of flat functors. I would be more inclined to call those properties something like “product cones” and “equalizer cones”.

    • CommentRowNumber14.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeNov 5th 2012

    re #10,

    thanks, of course. What was I thinking?

    • CommentRowNumber15.
    • CommentAuthorTim Campion
    • CommentTimeFeb 24th 2019

    The page claimed that a functor C→Set is flat if and only if it preserves finite limits. I added the hypothesis that C must have finite limits.

    diff, v32, current

    • CommentRowNumber16.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeFeb 25th 2019

    Actually I think what it claimed is that such a functor is flat if and only if its Yoneda extension [Cop,Set]→Set preserves finite limits, and that doesn’t require C to have finite limits.

  17. Correct the reference to Borceux’s Handbook of Categorical Algebra.

    Jens Hemelaer

    diff, v34, current

    • CommentRowNumber18.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeSep 25th 2022
    • M.E. Descotte, E.J. Dubuc, M. Szyld, On the notion of flat 2-functors, arXiv:1610.09429

    updated to

    • M.E. Descotte, E.J. Dubuc, M. Szyld, Sigma limits in 2-categories and flat pseudofunctors, (v1: On the notion of flat 2-functors) arXiv:1610.09429 Adv. Math. 333 (2018) 266–313

    diff, v38, current

1 to 18 of 18

  1.