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

(0 2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories accessible adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry beauty bundles calculus categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cobordism-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-theory cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive constructive-mathematics cosmology deformation-theory derived-geometry descent differential differential-cohomology differential-geometry duality education elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration foundations functional-analysis functor galois-theory gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry goodwillie-calculus gravity group-theory 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-theory k-theory kan lie-theory limit limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic manifolds mathematics measure measure-theory modal-logic model model-category-theory model-theory monad monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology newpage nonassociative noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory phenomenology 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 set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory stack string string-theory subobject super-geometry superalgebra supergeometry symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topological topology topos topos-theory tqft type type-theory universal

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
    • CommentTimeOct 7th 2012

    I added a bunch of things to connected space: stuff on the path components functor, an example of a countable connected Hausdorff space, and the observation that the quasi-components functor is left adjoint to the discrete space functor SetTopSet \to Top (Wikipedia reports that the connected components functor is left adjoint to the discrete space functor, but that’s wrong).

    This bit about quasi-components functor had never occurred to me before, although it seems to be true. I’m having difficulty getting much information on this functor. For example, does it preserve finite products? I don’t know, but I doubt it. Does anyone reading this know?

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeOct 7th 2012

    No, I’ve never thought about this sort of thing. Where is the mistake on Wikipedia? Did you consider correcting it?

    The page is very nice (thanks!). One question/comment:

    Every space is a disjoint union (but not necessarily a coproduct in the category of spaces) of connected components.

    Is the phrase “disjoint union” supposed to mean something stronger than a disjoint union of underlying sets? I mean, \mathbb{R} is the disjoint union of (,0)(-\infty,0) and [0,)[0,\infty), but my intuition is that the connected components of a space are somehow “more separated” than that. Is there any way to make that precise?

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeOct 7th 2012

    I can’t locate that alleged Wikipedia statement, but more importantly I’m going to have to retract what I said about the discrete space functor having a left adjoint of any form, because the discrete space functor does not preserve infinite products. Oops!

    I think someone else wrote the statement you highlighted. The statement and your interpretation are correct, but (,0)(-\infty, 0) and [0,)[0, \infty) are not connected components of \mathbb{R} even if they are connected.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeOct 7th 2012

    I have been working some more at connected space. The statement that I was comically getting wrong earlier should be replaced by:

    There is an adjoint string Π 0ΔΓ:SetLocConn\Pi_0 \dashv \Delta \dashv \Gamma \dashv \nabla: Set \to LocConn.

    Relevant to all this is the (previously unrealized by me) statement that locally connected spaces are coreflective in the category of all topological spaces.

    I have also been tightening the formatting and structure of the article here and there.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeOct 7th 2012

    … in other words, locally connected spaces are a cohesive 1-category over Set. (-:

    I think what I object to about the statement I highlighted is that in my mind, “disjoint union” is not an operation on spaces except insofar as it means “coproduct”, so it doesn’t make sense to talk about a space being a disjoint union of other spaces but not their coproduct. I tried to fix it by inserting references to underlying sets. The result still feels a little awkward, but I like it better at least.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeOct 7th 2012

    Yes. I think that highlighted statement was just trying to warn people of a very common pitfall (that is invariably embarrassing for those who fall in). I agree with your emendation.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeMay 19th 2016

    Early on in the history of this page, I had written that various definitions were constructively equivalent, but that wasn’t true even when I wrote it. I took it out just now.

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeMay 19th 2016
    • (edited May 19th 2016)

    Your phrasing seems to suggest a possibility that the statement might have been true when you wrote it but become false afterwards?

    Edit: Oh, do you mean that someone could have edited the definitions without changing the remark about them?

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeMay 20th 2016

    No, it wasn't true even when I wrote it, so I should never have written it. I can't just put things back the way that they used to be (and rephrase or move new material), because it was never correct.

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTime7 days ago

    At connected space I have first re-arranged the Definition-section (putting the elemetary definition first, and the category-theoretic definiton after that) and then I expanded a little, adding one more equivalent characterization and some words on the elementrary proof of why these elementary definitions are equivalent.

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTime4 days ago
    • (edited 4 days ago)

    I have further re-arranged the material at connected space a little, to easy reading. See the new table of contents.

    For instance I moved the definition of connected components to the Definition-secton, and I moved the discussion of “basic results” to “Basic examples” (because all these results are about classes of examples).

    Finally I have split off locally connected topological space to its own entry.