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

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
    • CommentTimeMay 15th 2014
    • (edited May 15th 2014)

    added to Isbell envelope the three original reference posted by Richard Garner to the Category Theory mailing list today (or yesterday).

    I don’t have time to look into this right now, I just copied those references there for the moment).

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthormaxsnew
    • CommentTimeJan 11th 2017

    I was surprised to see that there’s no comment on the relationship between the Isbell envelope and Cauchy completion of a category (on either page). The connection is really simple: objects in the Isbell envelope are presheaf-copresheaf pairs with a “counit” and the Cauchy completion can be seen as the subcategory where you have a unit making the pair into an adjunction.

    This seems like a preferable view to the description at the beginning of Cauchy complete category which defines it as a subcategory of the free cocompletion, because it emphasizes that the cauchy completion isn’t just a limity notion but simultaneously a colimity notion.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeJan 12th 2017

    It would be fine to add a note on this, of course. Ultimately it seems like another incarnation of the idea of points in the Cauchy completion being adjoint modules, which is there in the very sentence you are critiquing (and of course the simultaneous absolute limit/colimit idea is right there as well).

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthormaxsnew
    • CommentTimeJan 12th 2017

    Right, I was just surprised to see the connection wasn’t noted because objects in the Isbell envelope are so close to being adjoint presheaves!

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorvarkor
    • CommentTimeMar 31st 2023

    Mention connection to envelopes.

    diff, v20, current

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorvarkor
    • CommentTimeMar 31st 2023

    Mention couple category terminology.

    diff, v20, current

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorvarkor
    • CommentTimeMar 31st 2023

    Mention relation to factorisation systems.

    diff, v21, current