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 bundle bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-theory cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics comma 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 foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric geometric-quantization geometry goodwillie-calculus 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 infinity integration integration-theory k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology newpage 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 string 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.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeSep 6th 2012
    • (edited Sep 6th 2012)

    I have added a section about unary sites to regular and exact completions, and a mention of the fact that there are higher-ary versions (also to pretopos completion. I think this is about all I’m going to do right now in the way of adding content to the nLab from my exact completions paper.

    Below I copy an old discussion from regular and exact completions.

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeSep 6th 2012
    • (edited Sep 6th 2012)

    begin old discussion

    Todd Trimble: Hi Mike. Thanks very much for writing this article. Could you clarify for me your use of parentheticals below in the case of reg/lex completion? I am guessing that all parentheticals like “(weak)” can be safely ignored in the case where CC is actually finitely complete (as opposed to weakly finitely complete), so that, for example, the objects of C reg/lexC_{reg/lex} can in that case be taken to be pairs (c,e)(c, e) where ee is a kernel pair of a morphism f:cdf: c \to d, and morphisms (c,e)(c,e)(c, e) \to (c', e') are morphisms ccc \to c' which respect the equivalence relations.

    If my guess is correct, I think I might have found it easier to read if the finitely complete case were run through first, followed by discussion of what modifications are to be made in the case of weak finite completeness, rather than discussing the two cases simultaneously using parentheticals.

    Also, I wasn’t able to find under Properties something about the reg/lex completion I was expecting or hoping to find. (My immediate interest in this is the example of equilogical spaces as regular completion of TopTop.) Is there supposed to be a property along the lines that the regular completion is cartesian closed if CC has weak exponentials, and locally cartesian closed if CC has weak dependent products? (I don’t have ready access to the literature, so these should be treated as guesses.)

    Mike Shulman: You’re exactly right about the meaning of the parentheticals. Sorry for writing that in kind of a confusing way. Your guess is exactly right, and your suggestion is a good one; see if you think it’s clearer now.

    I’m surprised to realize that I omitted the conditions for (local) cartesian closure of the reg/lex completion, since one needs them to conclude that it preserves lextensive quasitoposes. The only conditions I can find in the literature require somewhat more than mere weak (local) cartesian closure of CC. The point being that the set of function from a quotient of XX to a quotient of YY may, in general, be only a quotient of the set of functions from XX to YY, so we need some way to ensure that that quotient exists in C reg/lexC_{reg/lex} since it doesn’t have all quotients. But TopTop does satisfy those conditions, so equilogical spaces are locally cartesian closed.

    Todd: Thanks again; I think the section on regular completion does read more clearly now, and the material you added to Properties is very helpful. I think what you wrote on equilogical spaces might fit well in Examples, as would realizability toposes as examples of exact completions. If I have time soon I might write down something stubby here.

    end old discussion

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeSep 6th 2012

    Partly on the principle of extracting a punchline from a removed discussion, I added the example of realizability toposes to the Examples section of regular and exact completions. Hopefully I can get to equilogical spaces as well, as another example.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeSep 6th 2012

    Great, thanks!

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeSep 6th 2012

    Nit-picky question: in the Properties section you (I think it was you, Mike) wrote, “Note that Top reg/lexTop_{reg/lex} is called the category of equilogical spaces.” This TopTop is the category Top 0Top_0 of T0_0 spaces, yes?

    Trying to fit some things together here: EquEqu is also the result of splitting partial equivalence relations in the category of algebraic lattices. So I’m guessing we have a chain

    AlgLatCor splitTop 0reg/lexEquAlgLat \stackrel{Cor_{split}}{\to} Top_0 \stackrel{reg/lex}{\to} Equ

    based on the idea that we can split PERs in two stages: first split coreflexive maps (that’s Cor splitCor_{split}), and from there split total equivalence relations (that’s the reg/lex completion, at least if equivalence relations coincide with kernel pairs, which I guess is true for T0_0-spaces (?)).

    Does that sound accurate?

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeSep 6th 2012

    Erm, maybe (on all points). It’s been a long time since I looked at equilogical spaces, and I don’t have the time right now to re-read up, sorry.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeOct 5th 2016
    • (edited Oct 5th 2016)

    To regular and exact completions I added several observations with supporting references: (1) that the ex/lex completion of a presheaf topos Set C opSet^{C^{op}} is a topos only if CC is a groupoid, (2) that the ex/lex completion of a ΠW\Pi W-pretopos is a ΠW\Pi W-pretopos, and (3) that the free small cocompletion of a (possibly large) finitely complete category is the ex/lex completion of its free coproduct completion.

  1. one typo

    steveawodey

    diff, v26, current

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)