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-categories 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-type-theory cohomology combinatorics complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science connection constructive constructive-mathematics cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry differential-topology digraphs duality education 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 homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory infinity integration integration-theory k-theory lie lie-theory 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 multicategories 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.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeSep 10th 2012

    Guys (<– not meaning to exclude females!), I’m really sorry, but I’m having trouble following what’s being said at algebraic lattice: “The category of topological spaces is the 2-image of the projection from the comma category (Set/Forgetful)(Set / Forgetful) to SetSet, where Forgetful:AlgLatSetForgetful : AlgLat \rightarrow Set is the obvious forgetful functor.” Probably there’s a bubble in my brain or something, but I can’t make much sense of this.

    Let me see: an object of Set/ForgetfulSet/Forgetful consists of a set SS, and algebraic lattice LL, and a function SU(L)S \to U(L) where UU is shorthand for ForgetfulForgetful. The projection to SetSet takes such a triple (S,L,U(L)(S, L, U(L) to the set SS. The 2-image is the category whose objects are triples (S,L,SU(L))(S, L, S \to U(L)), and where a morphism (S,L,SU(L))(S, L, S \to U(L)) to (S,L,SU(L)(S', L', S' \to U(L') is a function f:SSf: S \to S' such that there exists g:LLg: L \to L' making the evident square commutative (i.e., so that (f,g)(f, g) is a morphism of Set/ForgetfulSet/Forgetful).

    So first, how do I get a topological space out of (S,L,SU(L))(S, L, S \to U(L))? I guess SS is meant to be the underlying set, but then what?

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeSep 11th 2012

    bump. I’m probably going to remove that sentence if no one can explain it to me.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeSep 12th 2012

    I don’t see it. It was written by Sridhar Ramesh, FWIW.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorJon Beardsley
    • CommentTimeSep 12th 2012

    Is this some kind of weird Stone duality thing? Don’t suppose the algebraic situation implies distributivity or anything…? At least, I can’t see it.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeSep 12th 2012

    I’m not sure what Sridhar had in mind, but I went ahead and edited at algebraic lattice so that the material being referred to makes more sense to me.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorSridharRamesh
    • CommentTimeSep 13th 2012
    • (edited Sep 13th 2012)

    I wish I’d been more clear even for my future self… Here’s my attempt to reconstruct my thoughts, though everyone else’s confusion has me worried I must have screwed something up:

    I must have meant for the topology on SS to be such that a subset of SS is open just in case it is the preimage of an open subset of LL (with respect to the Scott topology). In other words, the topology is chosen to make the map from SS to LL a topological pre-embedding.

    Since the opens are classified by (Ω,Ω,1 Ω)(\Omega, \Omega, 1_{\Omega}), we automatically have that any f:SSf : S \to S' which is a morphism in our 2-image category is continuous with respect to the above topology.

    So we have a faithful functor from our 2-image category to TopTop (faithful because we took the 2-image).

    This functor is essentially surjective (that is, every topological space admits a pre-embedding into an algebraic lattice): given any topological space TT, we can form the triple (T,P|𝒪(T)|,x{U𝒪(T):xU})(T, P{|\mathcal{O}(T)|}, x \mapsto \{U \in \mathcal{O}(T): x \in U\}), as Todd now indicated in the article, whose image under the above faithful functor will be TT again. [This is because the Scott open subsets of P|𝒪(T)|P{|\mathcal{O}(T)|} are the unions of upwards closures of finite sets of opens; thus, their preimages will be the unions of finite intersections of opens of TT, which is to say, the opens of TT… (hopefully, I’ve gotten that right; we could also use an algebraic lattice of filters, rather than arbitrary subsets of 𝒪(T)\mathcal{O}(T))]

    Finally, this functor is full, using the fact that algebraic lattices are continuous lattices, and continuous lattices (with the Scott topology) are injective objects with respect to topological pre-embeddings. [Hopefully, I’ve gotten THAT right…]

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeSep 13th 2012

    Sridhar, I’m not finding anything wrong with what you wrote in #6. (I can’t tell whether I should be embarrassed by not thinking of this myself, but anyway it was simply a case of my not being clever enough on this occasion.) I’ll go through it one more time, and if all still seems well, I’ll reinstate what you wrote. Sorry (and thanks)!!

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorSridharRamesh
    • CommentTimeSep 13th 2012

    No worries. I should have spelt it out originally, rather than leave it to others (including my future self) to decipher my argument.

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeSep 15th 2012

    I have now reinstated Sridhar’s remarks from the earlier revision of algebraic lattice (more precisely, I rewrote them in more expanded form).

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorSridharRamesh
    • CommentTimeSep 15th 2012

    Thanks!

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeOct 1st 2012

    I added to algebraic lattice the observation that in a locally finitely presentable category, we get algebraic lattices by considering subobject lattices, quotient lattices (taking equivalence classes of epis), and congruence lattices. I plan to add a little more to that article later.

    • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeFeb 15th 2015

    Added to algebraic lattice some material on congruence lattices that I’ve only just heard.