# 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

## Discussion Tag Cloud

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

• CommentRowNumber1.
• CommentAuthorUrs
• CommentTimeNov 26th 2009
• (edited Oct 16th 2012)

edited reflective subcategory and expanded a bit the beginning

• CommentRowNumber2.
• CommentAuthorzskoda
• CommentTimeNov 26th 2009

I added a query and done a bit more succinct sectioning: distinguishing characterizations from just properties.

• CommentRowNumber3.
• CommentAuthorUrs
• CommentTimeMay 5th 2010
• (edited May 5th 2010)
• replied to Zoran’s old query box query

• added the theorem about reflective subcategories of cartesian closed categories from cartesian closed category

• CommentRowNumber4.
• CommentAuthorUrs
• CommentTimeOct 16th 2012

added at reflective subcategory a new subsection Accessible reflective subcategory with a quick remark on how accessible localizations of an accessible category are equivalently accessibe reflective subcategories.

This is prop. 5.5.1.2 in HTT. Can anyone give me the corresponding theorem number in Adamek-Rosicky’s book?

• CommentRowNumber5.
• CommentAuthorMike Shulman
• CommentTimeOct 16th 2012

I can’t find it stated explicitly. But “only if” follows immediately from 2.53 (an accessibly embedded subcategory of an accessible category is accessible iff it is cone-reflective), while “if” follows immediately from 2.23 (any left or right adjoint between accessible categories is accessible).

• CommentRowNumber6.
• CommentAuthorUrs
• CommentTimeOct 16th 2012

Thanks! I have put that into the entry here.

• CommentRowNumber7.
• CommentAuthorMike Shulman
• CommentTimeOct 16th 2012

I wonder whether it’s explicit in Makkai-Pare; I don’t have my copy of that with me in Princeton.

• CommentRowNumber8.
• CommentAuthorZhen Lin
• CommentTimeSep 30th 2013

I replaced statement (3) in Proposition 1 to make the statements equivalent. (Statement (3) previously only had the part about idempotent monads.)

1. Added an example: The category of affine schemes is a reflective subcategory of the category of schemes, with the reflector given by $X \mapsto Spec \Gamma(X,\mathcal{O}_X)$.

• CommentRowNumber10.
• CommentAuthorUrs
• CommentTimeOct 9th 2014

Thanks! There is much discussion of the infinity-version of this example at function algebras on infinity-stacks (following what Toën called “affine stacks” and what Lurie now calls “coaffine stacks”).

• CommentRowNumber11.
• CommentAuthorzskoda
• CommentTimeOct 12th 2014

Proposition 4.4.3 in

• A.L. Rosenberg, Noncommutative schemes, Comp. Math. 112, 93–125 (1998)

is a noncommutative analogue.

• CommentRowNumber12.
• CommentAuthorUrs
• CommentTimeOct 12th 2014

• CommentRowNumber13.
• CommentAuthorIngoBlechschmidt
• CommentTimeMay 9th 2016
• (edited May 9th 2016)

Added to reflective subcategory the observation that (assuming classical logic) $Set$ has exactly three reflective subcategories. I learned this from Kelly’s and Lawvere’s article On the complete lattice of essential localizations.

• CommentRowNumber14.
• CommentAuthorUrs
• CommentTimeMay 9th 2016

Here is a direct pointer to the edit that, I suppose, you are announcing. (Providing direct links like this within an entry of non-trivial length makes it easier for us all to spot what you are pointing us to.)

By the way, we have an entry subterminal object. I have added cross-links with subsingleton.

• CommentRowNumber15.
• CommentAuthorIngoBlechschmidt
• CommentTimeApr 8th 2017
• (edited Apr 8th 2017)

• CommentRowNumber16.
• CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
• CommentTimeApr 8th 2017

Perhaps the link to the paper should not be to the pdf? And better would be a proper human-readable reference.

• CommentRowNumber17.
• CommentAuthorUrs
• CommentTimeJun 29th 2018
• (edited Jun 29th 2018)

I gave the Prop. with “alternative characterizations” a proof, by pointing to the relevant sub-propositions proved in other entries.

2. Added an idea section. Expanded the section regarding limits and colimits in a reflective subcategory (one sentence for the case when the ambient category is complete and complete) and added a reference.

I also added two examples. The first example is that Cat is a reflective subcategory of sSet. The second is example is that for a Lawvere theory T, its category of models is a reflective subcategory of the category of all functors from T to Set. I added references for these examples.

This is my first contribution to nLab so my code hygiene may not be the best. If you have any suggestions on anything please let me know and I’ll be happy to make fixes.

3. Fixed typo in the Cat \to sSet example.

Christopher James Stough-Brown

• CommentRowNumber20.
• CommentAuthorUrs
• CommentTimeJul 9th 2019
• (edited Jul 9th 2019)

I made just some minor cosmetic edits to the Idea-section here that you added, such as hyperlinking more of the keywords.

Here some hints on editing:

• Hyperlinks within the nLab are and should be obtained simply by including the word/phrase to be hyperlinked in double square brackets. For instance [[Grp]] produces Grp. Most entries have all possible variants of their titles declared as redirects. For instance [[category of groups]] produces category of groups which gives the same link as Grp. Should the redirect not exist, you can either a) add a redicrect (look at the very bottom of the source code of any page to see how) or b) force it on the spot with a vertical slash: [[Grp|Groups]] produces Groups, which once again links to the same page as the previous two cases.

• Instiki maths is almost exactly like LaTeX maths, except for some small differences. One of them is the “feature” that consecutive letters in maths mode are rendered in roman font. This is useful when declaring category names such as in $AbGroups \to Groups$, because this gets rendered as intended $AbGroups \to Groups$. But it means that for operators applied to variables, such as in Tc \to Td get rendered as $Tc \to Td$ instead of as the intended $T c \to T d$. For the latter you need to introduce a whitespeace and type ‘T c \to T d“.

• CommentRowNumber21.