Not signed in (Sign In)

Start a new discussion

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 bundles calculus categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-theory cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive constructive-mathematics cosmology definitions deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry differential-topology digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration finite foundations functional-analysis functor galois-theory gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory history homological homological-algebra homology homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory infinity integration integration-theory k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal-logic model model-category-theory monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology multicategories newpage 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 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).
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeSep 5th 2012

    Created arity class. Added links from a few places, but there are probably others I didn’t think of.

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeSep 6th 2012

    Excellent term! Is it yours?

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeSep 6th 2012

    Yes. I’m glad you like it!

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorZhen Lin
    • CommentTimeSep 6th 2012

    Is the full subcategory spanned by a class of arities always also a category of arities for the identity monad, in the sense of a monad with arities? This is certainly true for {1}\{ 1 \} (for trivial reasons), 0\aleph_0 (because filtered colimits preserve finite products), and \infty (because the diagram in question has a terminal vertex). But I’m less certain about the other regular cardinals, especially the finite ones…

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeSep 6th 2012

    Good question! Let’s see, SetSet is locally κ\kappa-presentable for any infinite regular cardinal κ\kappa, so the κ\kappa-small sets are κ\kappa-presentable and the associated canonical colimits are κ\kappa-filtered. Seems like that’s exactly what we need to conclude that the identity monad has the appropriate arities.

    For the unique finite regular cardinal 22, the 22-small sets are 0 and 1, so we only need to worry about whether mapping out of 0 preserves the canonical 22-colimits. Being 2-filtered means being inhabited, but mapping out of 0 doesn’t preserve inhabited colimits (e.g. coproducts). It does, however, preserve connected colimits, and any canonical colimit w.r.t. 2 is connected (the diagram has an initial object). So I think we’re good there too.

    That suggests that maybe there’s some sense in which “22-filtered” ought to mean “connected”? I can’t see how that could be true other than by convention, though. Maybe I’m just confused.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorZhen Lin
    • CommentTimeSep 7th 2012
    • (edited Sep 7th 2012)

    I’m quite confused as well: as far as I can tell, the only reason we want ν 𝒜T\nu_{\mathcal{A}} T to preserve canonical colimits is so that Beck–Chevalley condition is satisfied for the obvious diagram of functors, but in the case T=idT = id this is automatic… (Assuming I haven’t made any mistakes, the density of Θ𝒞 𝕋\Theta \hookrightarrow \mathcal{C}^\mathbb{T} can be proven with weaker assumptions.)

    Regarding 2-filteredness: if we (re)define “small κ\kappa-filtered category 𝒥\mathcal{J}” to mean “colim 𝒥colim_\mathcal{J} preserves κ\kappa-limits in Set\mathbf{Set}”, then a 2-filtered category is precisely a connected inhabited category. Since κ\kappa-filtered categories in the traditional sense are connected for κ 0\kappa \ge \aleph_0, this doesn’t seem to be too much to ask for…

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeSep 7th 2012

    the only reason we want ν 𝒜T\nu_{\mathcal{A}} T to preserve canonical colimits is so that Beck–Chevalley condition is satisfied for the obvious diagram of functors, but in the case T=idT = id this is automatic…

    Well, sure, but that’s separate to the question of whether the arity class gives arities to the identity monad for the formal definition of “has arities”, right? It’s just saying that in the special case of Id, the formal definition of “has arities” is stronger than necessary for the conclusion of the main general theorem about it to hold.

    if we (re)define “small κ\kappa-filtered category 𝒥\mathcal{J}” to mean “colim 𝒥colim_\mathcal{J} preserves κ\kappa-limits in Set\mathbf{Set}”, then a 2-filtered category is precisely a connected inhabited category.

    Ah, yes!! And that’s the right definition, too, because it generalizes even further.

    (Small point: a connected category is automatically inhabited.)

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeSep 7th 2012

    a connected category is automatically inhabited

    Smile. I expect Zhen was just being on the safe side, since there remain some people who think empty things are connected. :-)

Add your comments
  • Please log in or leave your comment as a "guest post". If commenting as a "guest", please include your name in the message as a courtesy. Note: only certain categories allow guest posts.
  • To produce a hyperlink to an nLab entry, simply put double square brackets around its name, e.g. [[category]]. To use (La)TeX mathematics in your post, make sure Markdown+Itex is selected below and put your mathematics between dollar signs as usual. Only a subset of the usual TeX math commands are accepted: see here for a list.

  • (Help)