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

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
    • CommentTimeNov 28th 2013

    finally created intensive and extensive with the topos-theoretic formalization following the concise statement in the introduction of Categories in Continuum Physics

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeSep 25th 2016
    • (edited Sep 26th 2016)

    I brought in that commentary from Science of Logic to this section to see if I can understand how it all links up.

    So what is the connection for an object of intensive quantities that

    • XXX \to \sharp X is a monomorphism
    • XX is a commutative ring object?
    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeSep 26th 2016

    Aha, so the extensive description in terms of

    objects which have purely the negative moment of continuity ¯\overline{\sharp}

    relates to case such as:

    the smooth moduli space of differential n-forms is maximally non-concrete. (dcct, Proposition 1.2.63.)

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorDean
    • CommentTime2 days ago
    • (edited 2 days ago)

    Here is an interesting example:

    K 0K_0 is of course a decategorigication functor. Let us take the version where we mod out by direct sums and not exact sequences- modifications will naturally ensue. This might be thought of as an “extensive decategorication functor” from A-modA \text{-mod} to an abelian group, where direct sums go to sums- sums are the natural decategorication of direct sums.

    Broadly, there are two sorts of decategorication functors, and the second is more like a trace. There is an article (here)[https://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.1198.pdf] which defines trace in quite a general way. In brief, we take the abelian group XCEnd C(X,X)\oplus_{X \in C} \text{End}_C( X, X) and mod out by fggffg - gf.

    For instance, take -mod\mathbb{R} \text{-mod}. The trace gives \mathbb{R} as an abelian group, along with the canonical map tr:-mod\text{tr} : \mathbb{R} \text{-mod} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}, which is identically trace. Viewing \mathbb{R} as a category where morphisms f:abf : a \rightarrow b are elements cc such that cb=ac b = a, we have a contravariant functor, which sends products of morphisms to sums.

    It interested me in reading this why there are two sorts of decategorification for abelian categories. But after studying intensive and extensive types some, I wonder, can we view trace as the intensive type corresponding to the extensive type “K_0”?

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)