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 definitions 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 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).

nLab > nLab General Discussions: Definition of a sheaf

Bottom of Page

1 to 5 of 5

  1.  
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorBubbles
    • CommentTimeOct 7th 2014
    • (edited Oct 7th 2014)
    There is a sentence in the article on the definition of a coverage that I don't quite understand.

    http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/coverage

    Under the section "Sheaves on a site", it is said that for a family of coterminal morphisms [...] a presheaf X is a sheaf if: [...]
    The condition stated afterwards is what puzzles me. What is exactly the condition on the elements x_i? The sentence itself doesn't really make sense to me.

    Also, what is meant by "a family of coterminal morphisms" in this case, is it a condition on the family? My guess is that it is a family which can be used as the covering family which must exists for any other family (if that makes sense).

    I tried to read the article "sheaf", but this puzzles me more. It speaks of "compatible families of elements", but I don't see how the link provided ("matching family") explains that in that particular setting.
    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
    • CommentTimeOct 8th 2014

    Also, what is meant by “a family of coterminal morphisms” in this case, is it a condition on the family?

    This is just a family of morphisms with the same codomain, in this case U.

    What is exactly the condition on the elements x_i?

    A family of elements x_i∈X(U_i) is compatible if for all g: V→U_i and h: V→U_j (where V is arbitrary) such that f_i g = f_j h we have X(g)(x_i) = X(h)(x_j).

    The entire condition can now be reformulated as follows:

    For any compatible collection of elements x_i \in X(U_i) there exists a unique x∈X(U) such that X(f_i)(x)=x_i for all i.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorBubbles
    • CommentTimeOct 8th 2014
    Thanks!

    So if I understand it correctly, in the definition of a sheaf in the article "sheaf", the sentence "and for every compatible family of elements given by tuples[...]" not impose any more conditions on the family of elements other than exactly what is stated right afterwards, namely "such that for all morphisms[...]" (which is your definition above). It confused me because it seemed like being a "compatible family" was an additional criterion on the family of elements.
    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
    • CommentTimeOct 8th 2014

    Yes, compatible family simply means what I wrote above, i.e., a family of sections that match on the intersections. The statement in the article is certainly ambiguous and would clearly benefit from splitting out the definition of a compatible family.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeOct 8th 2014

    Handy link: coverage.

1 to 5 of 5

  1.