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 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 internal-categories k-theory 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 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.
   • CommentAuthorEmily Riehl
   • CommentTimeMay 22nd 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: Emily Riehl
   Format: MarkdownItexI 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.

   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.

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeMay 23rd 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexExcellent, 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.

   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.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeMay 23rd 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexThe 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.

   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.

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorFinnLawler
   • CommentTimeMay 23rd 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: FinnLawler
   Format: MarkdownItexIt is Satz 7.13: > Sei $A$ eine Kategorie derart, dass $A$ und $A^\circ$ lokal präsentierbar sind. Dann ist $A$ eine "Hängematte", d.h. $A$ ist äquivalent zu einer inf- und supvollständigen geordnete Menge (vgl. 7.2g). Gibt es in $A$ ein Nullobjekt, dann ist $A \cong \{0\}$. Apparently _eine Hängematte_ is a hammock. 7.2g is the example > Eine inf- und supvollständige partiell geordnete Menge $M$ ist lokal präsentierbar und lokal kopräsentierbar. So 7.13 is really an if-and-only-if.

   It is Satz 7.13:

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

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

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

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

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeMay 24th 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItex> Apparently eine Hängematte is a hammock. Yes. Verbatim "a hanging mat" :-)

   Apparently eine Hängematte is a hammock.

   Yes. Verbatim “a hanging mat” :-)

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorEmily Riehl
   • CommentTimeMay 24th 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: Emily Riehl
   Format: MarkdownItexVielen Dank!

   Vielen Dank!

7. • CommentRowNumber7.
   • CommentAuthorFinnLawler
   • CommentTimeMay 25th 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: FinnLawler
   Format: MarkdownItexI 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!)

   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!)