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-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry book bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration foundation 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-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic 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 sheaves simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory stack string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft 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).

Atrium > Mathematics, Physics & Philosophy: Clarify the definition of a pointwise kan extension?

Bottom of Page

1 to 4 of 4

  1.  
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorHarry Gindi
    • CommentTimeDec 16th 2009
    • (edited Dec 16th 2009)
    Currently, the definition at kan extension says that the only difference is that they are computed by limits and colimits. Why would the method of computation matter? Shouldn't the universal property guarantee the uniqueness up to unique isomorphism?

    Also, the definition of a pointwise kan extension isn't even given explicitly, it's only mentioned in a few remarks.
    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeDec 16th 2009
    This comment is invalid XHTML+MathML+SVG; displaying source. <div> <blockquote> Why would the method of computation matter? </blockquote> <p>It's not meant to say that the computations yield different results, if both exist.</p> <blockquote> Also, the definition of a pointwise kan extension isn't even given explicitly, it's only mentioned in a few remarks. </blockquote> <p>Please, feel encouraged to help improve the entry. I know (and probably we all know) that it is far from being perfect or even satisfactory. If you feel you care about it, try to improve it., And be it only by adding a query box somewhere saying for instance "At this point such and such should be stated".</p> <p>Apart from that general remark, isn't the pointwise definition explicitly given in the sections</p> <p><a href="http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Kan+extension#byColimits">pointwise in terms of colimits</a></p> <p>and</p> <p><a href="http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Kan+extension#byCoends">pointwise in terms of coends</a></p> <p>?</p> </div>
    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorHarry Gindi
    • CommentTimeDec 16th 2009
    Those look like formulas, not definitions. I also don't understand them, so I can't really help fix the article. All I'm saying is that there are a few remarks saying that pointwise is more important, but not even explaining the difference or giving an example of how the pointwise kan extension can fail to exist.
    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeDec 16th 2009

    Oh. These formulas are the definition. The pointwise Kan extension is defined to be the (co)limit or (co)end as given there.

    Okay, so we neeed to explain this better on the page.

1 to 4 of 4

  1.