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 beauty bundles calculus categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-theory cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology combinatorics complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology definitions deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry differential-topology digraphs duality education elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory homological homological-algebra homology homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory infinity integration integration-theory k-theory kan lie lie-theory limit limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic manifolds mathematics measure-theory modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nonassociative noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pasting philosophy physics planar 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-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.
    • CommentAuthorEmily Riehl
    • CommentTimeMay 22nd 2012

    I created locally bounded category with basic results from papers of Kelly and Lack. My motivation (unfortunately not reflected in the current stub) is to provide a reference for convergence conditions for the free monad construction.

    On this topic, does anyone know whether there are reasonable conditions under which the dual “free comonad” construction would converge? I’m concerned by the result at locally presentable category (new to me; does anyone have a reference?) which says that the opposite of a locally presentable category is locally presentable only if the category is a poset.

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeMay 23rd 2012

    Excellent, thanks! I added some links and a redirect for the plural form.

    I think the cofree comonad construction (e.g. for coinductive types) is actually often easier, because the endofunctors we start with are usually defined by mapping out of things, and therefore preserve limits automatically. They don’t generally preserve colimits, which is why the free monad is harder to construct; we have to look at highly filtered colimits that they do preserve, or pass to factorization systems instead.

    But if you start with an arbitrary endofunctor, then no, I don’t know how to ensure that the cofree comonad construction converges.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeMay 23rd 2012

    The theorem that the opposite of a locally presentable category is locally presentable only if the category is a poset is attributed in Makkai-Pare (p63) to Gabriel and Ulmer’s original “Lokal präsentierbare Kategorien”, which I don’t have a copy of.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorFinnLawler
    • CommentTimeMay 23rd 2012

    It is Satz 7.13:

    Sei AA eine Kategorie derart, dass AA und A A^\circ lokal präsentierbar sind. Dann ist AA eine “Hängematte”, d.h. AA ist äquivalent zu einer inf- und supvollständigen geordnete Menge (vgl. 7.2g). Gibt es in AA ein Nullobjekt, dann ist A{0}A \cong \{0\}.

    Apparently eine Hängematte is a hammock. 7.2g is the example

    Eine inf- und supvollständige partiell geordnete Menge MM ist lokal präsentierbar und lokal kopräsentierbar.

    So 7.13 is really an if-and-only-if.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 24th 2012

    Apparently eine Hängematte is a hammock.

    Yes. Verbatim “a hanging mat” :-)

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorEmily Riehl
    • CommentTimeMay 24th 2012

    Vielen Dank!

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorFinnLawler
    • CommentTimeMay 25th 2012

    I have added the reference to locally presentable category.

    (OT: according to de.wikipedia, Hängematte was originally Hamach, from the same word as the English hammock, but was ’retconned’ over the years into its current form. A fascinating insight into the German-speaking mind!)