Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

• Username
• Password
• Remember me

• Sign in using OpenID
• Remember me

• Forgot your password?
• Apply for membership

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 internal-categories k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology 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 superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft type type-theory universal variational-calculus

1. • CommentRowNumber1.
   • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
   • CommentTimeJan 23rd 2014
   • PermaLink
   Author: Tim_Porter
   Format: MarkdownItexIn looking at pro-categories and prohomotopy, I find statements in the literature to the effect that every constant pro-object is cosmall, and then (Christensen and Isaksen):Every object of every pro-category is κ-cosmall relative to all pro-maps for some κ. The proof that they give seems to me a bit like reinventing the wheel. Isn't this something like the dual of the arguments used in looking at locally FP categories and Gabriel-Ulmer duality? Their result is used in a lot of the papers on pro-homotopy theories as then these are (very nearly) fibrantly generated. I need this for my monograph on profinite homotopy, but we have nothing on cosmall objects and the consequences of the cosmall object argument in the nLab, and intend putting a version of it there afterwards. Does anyone have thoughts on how to present this in the Lab. (I will have to give more (tedious) detail in the monograph as I do not have LFP categories explained anyway.) I also feel that some of the gory detail given more or less categorical folklore, but have not been able to track down enough to be able to pin that down. (It is almost in SGA4 which is online.) I am hindered by not having access to a library as I work from home. (Oh for universal open access!!!!!)

   In looking at pro-categories and prohomotopy, I find statements in the literature to the effect that every constant pro-object is cosmall, and then (Christensen and Isaksen):Every object of every pro-category is κ-cosmall relative to all pro-maps for some κ. The proof that they give seems to me a bit like reinventing the wheel. Isn’t this something like the dual of the arguments used in looking at locally FP categories and Gabriel-Ulmer duality? Their result is used in a lot of the papers on pro-homotopy theories as then these are (very nearly) fibrantly generated.

   I need this for my monograph on profinite homotopy, but we have nothing on cosmall objects and the consequences of the cosmall object argument in the nLab, and intend putting a version of it there afterwards.

   Does anyone have thoughts on how to present this in the Lab. (I will have to give more (tedious) detail in the monograph as I do not have LFP categories explained anyway.) I also feel that some of the gory detail given more or less categorical folklore, but have not been able to track down enough to be able to pin that down. (It is almost in SGA4 which is online.) I am hindered by not having access to a library as I work from home. (Oh for universal open access!!!!!)

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorZhen Lin
   • CommentTimeJan 23rd 2014
   • PermaLink
   Author: Zhen Lin
   Format: MarkdownItexEvery object in $Ind (\mathcal{C})$ is small (relative to all morphisms in $Ind (\mathcal{C})$) (for some cardinal depending on the object). This is because the class of small objects is closed under small colimits (in any category). But $Pro (\mathcal{C}) = Ind (\mathcal{C}^{op})^{op}$, so I suppose your statement follows by duality.

   Every object in $Ind (\mathcal{C})$ is small (relative to all morphisms in $Ind (\mathcal{C})$) (for some cardinal depending on the object). This is because the class of small objects is closed under small colimits (in any category). But $Pro (\mathcal{C}) = Ind (\mathcal{C}^{op})^{op}$, so I suppose your statement follows by duality.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
   • CommentTimeJan 23rd 2014
   • PermaLink
   Author: Tim_Porter
   Format: MarkdownItexThanks ... and representables are small.... is that the point? I had written down that but thought that if it was so simple why had C & I written such a lot on it! I feared I might be missing something.

   Thanks … and representables are small…. is that the point? I had written down that but thought that if it was so simple why had C & I written such a lot on it! I feared I might be missing something.

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorZhen Lin
   • CommentTimeJan 24th 2014
   • PermaLink
   Author: Zhen Lin
   Format: MarkdownItexYes, representables are small. But I wouldn't say it's simple... there are a few details to be checked: that there is a category $Ind (\mathcal{C})$, that the objects in $Ind (\mathcal{C})$ are filtered colimits of representables, etc.

   Yes, representables are small. But I wouldn’t say it’s simple… there are a few details to be checked: that there is a category $Ind (\mathcal{C})$, that the objects in $Ind (\mathcal{C})$ are filtered colimits of representables, etc.

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
   • CommentTimeJan 24th 2014
   • PermaLink
   Author: Tim_Porter
   Format: MarkdownItexThanks again. I checked that up (it is in SGA4). In my pro-category case, those facts (or their duals) are in the earlier parts of the monograph. For the Lab the DEFINITION of $Ind(\mathcal{C})$ puts these as prerquisites for the structure then derives the construction, which is fine and dandy but did not help me that much as the definition I had used was not in that form. Looking at Chorny's treatment of the Grossman-Isaksen model category structure on $Pro(\mathcal{S})$, he only uses that the representables / constant pro-objects are cosmall. (I must try to work out how this all ties in with Algebraic WFSs à la Garner! I have Isaksen, Chorny, Barnea-Schlank and also the AWFS stuff from Richard and Emily. It should make a neater way to view the pro-homotopy theory stuff that seems to be important for motives etc.)

   Thanks again. I checked that up (it is in SGA4). In my pro-category case, those facts (or their duals) are in the earlier parts of the monograph. For the Lab the DEFINITION of $Ind(\mathcal{C})$ puts these as prerquisites for the structure then derives the construction, which is fine and dandy but did not help me that much as the definition I had used was not in that form.

   Looking at Chorny’s treatment of the Grossman-Isaksen model category structure on $Pro(\mathcal{S})$, he only uses that the representables / constant pro-objects are cosmall.

   (I must try to work out how this all ties in with Algebraic WFSs à la Garner! I have Isaksen, Chorny, Barnea-Schlank and also the AWFS stuff from Richard and Emily. It should make a neater way to view the pro-homotopy theory stuff that seems to be important for motives etc.)

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorZhen Lin
   • CommentTimeJan 24th 2014
   • PermaLink
   Author: Zhen Lin
   Format: MarkdownItexThere are some nice things you can say about algebraically free AWFSes (that are generated by some small set) on locally presentable categories. Also, John Bourke and Richard Garner have a theorem essentially saying that (under certain hypotheses) an accessible AWFS is cofibrantly generated (in a generalised sense) by a small double category.

   There are some nice things you can say about algebraically free AWFSes (that are generated by some small set) on locally presentable categories. Also, John Bourke and Richard Garner have a theorem essentially saying that (under certain hypotheses) an accessible AWFS is cofibrantly generated (in a generalised sense) by a small double category.

7. • CommentRowNumber7.
   • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
   • CommentTimeJan 24th 2014
   • (edited Jan 24th 2014)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Tim_Porter
   Format: MarkdownItexMy problem would be the dual. Do you have a reference for that? As locally presentable categories are almost Ind-categories, so that looks interesting.

   My problem would be the dual. Do you have a reference for that? As locally presentable categories are almost Ind-categories, so that looks interesting.

8. • CommentRowNumber8.
   • CommentAuthorZhen Lin
   • CommentTimeJan 24th 2014
   • PermaLink
   Author: Zhen Lin
   Format: MarkdownItexIndeed, a locally finitely presentable category is necessarily equivalent to $Ind (\mathcal{C})$ for some small $\mathcal{C}$ with finite colimits. I worked out some properties of algebraically free AWFSes for an essay: see section 2.2 [here](https://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~zll22/preprints/ModelHeart.pdf). It's mostly small improvements on the folklore. The theorem of Bourke and Garner I mentioned is not yet published – I heard of it when John gave a seminar talk on it – but perhaps you could write to one of them for details.

   Indeed, a locally finitely presentable category is necessarily equivalent to $Ind (\mathcal{C})$ for some small $\mathcal{C}$ with finite colimits.

   I worked out some properties of algebraically free AWFSes for an essay: see section 2.2 here. It’s mostly small improvements on the folklore. The theorem of Bourke and Garner I mentioned is not yet published – I heard of it when John gave a seminar talk on it – but perhaps you could write to one of them for details.