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

Discussion Tag Cloud

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.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeOct 25th 2012

    Added a mentioning of the term logos at the beginning of Heyting category.

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorDaniil
    • CommentTimeNov 3rd 2015

    Would it be correct to say that a Heyting cateogry is a category for which the Subobject functor is a first-order hyperdoctrine? If so, do we need to require the Beck-Chevalley condition for the adjoint functors or does it follow somehow?

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorZhen Lin
    • CommentTimeNov 3rd 2015

    The relevant Beck–Chevalley conditions are satisfied in any regular category, hence also in any Heyting category.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeSep 15th 2020

    Made description of implication arrow cleaner.

    diff, v16, current

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorNikolajK
    • CommentTimeSep 20th 2020

    I find it a bit hard to be sure about the type of objects involved (A=>B as morphism), especially since a topos also has connectives from and to products of Omega. Can this be stratified a bit?

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeSep 20th 2020

    Clarified a bit more.

    diff, v17, current

  1. Added example: every locally cartesian closed coherent category is a Heyting category.


    diff, v19, current