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 bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive constructive-mathematics 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-quantization geometry 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 integration integration-theory k-theory lie lie-theory limit limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic manifolds mathematics measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nforum 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 stack 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
    • CommentTimeJul 9th 2013

    Did we really not have continuous poset?

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeJul 9th 2013

    No, we really did not – but you’ve now ungrayed some links; thank you!

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 9th 2013
    • (edited Jul 9th 2013)

    added a link to it from poset and from lattice

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeJul 21st 2013

    Added to continuous poset the statement that continuous lattices are monadic over sets, via the filter monad.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeJul 21st 2013

    Incidentally, I see a gray link to locally compact locale. It might make sense to absorb this proposed article into locally compact space, because it seems to be a theorem that locally compact locales are in fact spatial. See for example Categorical Foundations: Special Topics in Order, Topology, Algebra, and Sheaf Theory (ed. M.C. Pedicchio, W. Tholen), chapter II (Locales, written by Jorge Picado, Aleš Pultr, and Anna Tozzi), section 7 (p.97). Might also be in Johnstone’s Stone Spaces; haven’t checked.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJul 21st 2013

    It sounds like the sort of theorem that might be true classically but not constructively. I don’t have SS in front of me right now to check what’s in there.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeJul 21st 2013

    Good call, Mike. I think you’re right.

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeJul 21st 2013

    I would be inclined to fold locally compact locale into locally compact space anyway, since ‘space’ to me does not necessarily mean a topological space. In particular, the text ‘In classical mathematics, every locally compact locale is spatial, hence a locally compact space.’ now at the former page seems a non sequitur to me; classically or not, locally compact or not, every locale is a space. (This is also a problem with ‘spatial’ as applied to locales, but at least that is a technical term with an established meaning, unlike ‘space’.)

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJul 21st 2013

    In that case, the page locally compact space would have to be significantly rewritten to be about more general kinds of “space”. If you object to “space” meaning “topological space” then I would be more inclined to rename the page locally compact space to locally compact topological space, have a separate page locally compact locale, and make “locally compact space” a redirect-with-hatnote to locally compact topological space.

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeJul 21st 2013

    Yes, rewriting locally compact space is one thing that I've wanted to do for a while but haven't got around to, for various reasons.

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJul 21st 2013

    Section C4.1 of the Elephant remarks “it can be shown using the axiom of choice that if a continuous lattice AA is distributive, then the locale XX defined by 𝒪(X)=A\mathcal{O}(X)=A is spatial, and its space of points is locally compact.” For a proof it cites “The spectral theory of distributive continuous lattices” by Hoffman and Lawson.

    • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeJun 22nd 2014

    I added a bit more to continuous poset. One point which hadn’t been made before is that different people mean different things by the category of continuous lattices. People who think continuous lattices are monadic over sets think that the morphisms preserve directed joins and arbitrary meets. People who think the category of continuous lattices is cartesian closed think the morphisms are the maps that preserve directed joins.

    • CommentRowNumber13.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeJun 23rd 2014

    I put in an explicit discussion of possible morphisms. Are there common names for the various categories of continuous lattices?

  1. Added example that the lattice of open subsets of a topological space is a continuous lattice if and only if the sobrification of the topological space is locally compact (i.e. the topology has a basis of compact neighborhoods).

    I am going to add this information at a few other places (where it is relevant)

    diff, v13, current

  2. Also made clear in the case of frames, that already by definition a frame is locally compact if it continuous.

    diff, v13, 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)