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.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeMay 1st 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexI have created [[exhaustive category]] — not just the page, but the terminology. No one at [MO](http://mathoverflow.net/questions/93567/exactness-for-sequential-unions-of-monomorphisms) seemed to know a name for this exactness property, so I made one up. The adjective "exhaustive" seems harmonious with "extensive" and "adhesive", and expresses the idea that the subobjects in a transfinite union "exhaust" the colimit. But I would welcome other opinions and suggestions.

   I have created exhaustive category — not just the page, but the terminology. No one at MO seemed to know a name for this exactness property, so I made one up. The adjective “exhaustive” seems harmonious with “extensive” and “adhesive”, and expresses the idea that the subobjects in a transfinite union “exhaust” the colimit. But I would welcome other opinions and suggestions.

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeMay 3rd 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexI have added an [alternative characterization](http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/exhaustive+category#AlternativeCharacterization) of exhaustive categories, analogous to similar ones for adhesive and extensive categories. There should also be a third characterization involving embeddings into an infinitary pretopos preserving transfinite unions.

   I have added an alternative characterization of exhaustive categories, analogous to similar ones for adhesive and extensive categories. There should also be a third characterization involving embeddings into an infinitary pretopos preserving transfinite unions.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeMay 3rd 2012
   • (edited May 3rd 2012)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexThat's nicer! Maybe it's just me, but that second characterization flows more smoothly: a category is exhaustive if transfinite composites of monos exist, are monos and are preserved by pullback. I would make that the default characterization.

   That’s nicer! Maybe it’s just me, but that second characterization flows more smoothly: a category is exhaustive if transfinite composites of monos exist, are monos and are preserved by pullback. I would make that the default characterization.

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeMay 3rd 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexI had that reaction when I first encountered the versions for extensive and adhesive categories: coproducts are disjoint and stable, or pushouts of monos are monos, stable, and are pullbacks. In fact when I first made the page for adhesive categories I left out the "cube lemma" characterization entirely. However, recently these sorts of definitions have been growing on me, not just because they are more uniform across different exactness properties, but because they directly express stack conditions, and because they are surprisingly useful. Cf. HTT 6.1.3.9(4). However, for uniformity with [[extensive category]] and [[adhesive category]] I agree that both definitions should at least be presented on an equal footing; I've so rearranged the page.

   I had that reaction when I first encountered the versions for extensive and adhesive categories: coproducts are disjoint and stable, or pushouts of monos are monos, stable, and are pullbacks. In fact when I first made the page for adhesive categories I left out the “cube lemma” characterization entirely. However, recently these sorts of definitions have been growing on me, not just because they are more uniform across different exactness properties, but because they directly express stack conditions, and because they are surprisingly useful. Cf. HTT 6.1.3.9(4).

   However, for uniformity with extensive category and adhesive category I agree that both definitions should at least be presented on an equal footing; I’ve so rearranged the page.

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeMay 3rd 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexDoes the characterization of HTT 6.1.3.9(4) exist anywhere on the nLab?

   Does the characterization of HTT 6.1.3.9(4) exist anywhere on the nLab?

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeMay 3rd 2012
   • (edited May 3rd 2012)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItex> Does the characterization of HTT 6.1.3.9(4) exist anywhere on the nLab? No, I think that is not on the $n$Lab. Most of the surrounding statements are neither, I think.

   Does the characterization of HTT 6.1.3.9(4) exist anywhere on the nLab?

   No, I think that is not on the $n$Lab. Most of the surrounding statements are neither, I think.

7. • CommentRowNumber7.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeMay 3rd 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexMore properties added to [[exhaustive category]]: transfinite unions preserve finite limits. Is the fact that the diagonal functor of a filtered category is final anywhere on the nLab?

   More properties added to exhaustive category: transfinite unions preserve finite limits. Is the fact that the diagonal functor of a filtered category is final anywhere on the nLab?

8. • CommentRowNumber8.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeMay 3rd 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItex> Is the fact that the diagonal functor of a filtered category is final anywhere on the nLab? Not quite explicitly yet, but at [[sifted (infinity,1)-category]] it has the general statement. I am adding the remark about filtered categories now...

   Is the fact that the diagonal functor of a filtered category is final anywhere on the nLab?

   Not quite explicitly yet, but at sifted (infinity,1)-category it has the general statement.

   I am adding the remark about filtered categories now…