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 comma 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 finite 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 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).
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
    • CommentTimeFeb 15th 2015

    I created a new page distributivity of products and colimits, where I recorded what I learned after asking this question: http://nforum.mathforge.org/discussion/6255/commutativity-of-homotopy-sifted-colimits-and-products-in-categories-other-than-sets-or-spaces/

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeFeb 16th 2015
    • (edited Feb 16th 2015)

    Thanks! I have cross-linked with sifted colimit and with commutativity of limits and colimits. Also, I have made your pointers to the references come out hyperlinked.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
    • CommentTimeDec 22nd 2015

    I added a new example: sifted colimits distribute over limits in an algebraically exact category, in particular in a variety.

    I also renamed the page to “distributivity of colimits over limits” in order to described its content more accurately.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeDec 22nd 2015

    Shouldn’t it be “distributivity of limits over colimits”?

    Also, note that \rm doesn’t work on the nLab.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeDec 22nd 2015
    • (edited Dec 22nd 2015)

    note that \rm doesn’t work on the nLab.

    Dmitri, regarding this: for better or worse every consecutive string of characters in math mode is automatically romanized by Instiki

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
    • CommentTimeDec 23rd 2015

    @MikeShulman: I checked all 4 references, and 3 of them say “colimits distribute over limits”.

    Only one reference (Continuous Categories Revisited) reverses the order.

    What is funny is that exactly the same three authors wrote another paper (How algebraic is algebra) with the opposite conventions!

    Also, I’m sorry about \rm. It is really annoying to try to keep in mind all these proprietary extensions to TeX made for no good reason…

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeDec 23rd 2015

    Well, I still think it’s wrong and we should change it. It’s 100% standard that multiplication distributes over addition. Thus, products distribute over coproducts. Thus, limits distribute over colimits.

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeDec 24th 2015

    I don’t think I agree with the name change that replaces “commutativity” with “distributivity”. Ordinarily I would say “sifted colimits commute with products”, and I don’t think there is any real danger of misunderstanding what this means. If anyone feels that “commutative” is a slightly loose use of language, then I would recommend “interchange of sifted colimits and products” in its place, and I think the latter expression is pretty much unimpeachable.

    In my opinion, “distributivity” in this context is no improvement over “commutativity”. It’s hard to parse what it even means to say that “filtered colimits distribute over equalizers” or “equalizers distribute over filtered colimits” by extrapolating from “products distribute over coproducts” (which we interpret as saying that a one-sided product A×A \times -, an unary operation, preserves binary coproducts). Interchange, the term used in Categories for the Working Mathematician, captures more accurately the phenomenon we are after (“distributivity” just seems wrong to me here).

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeDec 24th 2015

    I think the meaning of “distributes” here is actually different from “commutes with”. If I read it correctly, saying that “binary products distribute over binary coproducts” means that we have the expected

    (A+B)×(C+D)(A×C)+(A×D)+(B×C)+(B×D) (A+B)\times (C+D) \cong (A\times C) + (A\times D) + (B\times C) + (B\times D)

    whereas “binary products commute with binary coproducts” would mean instead that

    (A+B)×(C+D)(A×C)+(B×D). (A+B)\times (C+D) \cong (A\times C) + (B\times D).
    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeDec 24th 2015

    Dmitri, the lack of \rm is not an extension to TeX, and there’s certainly nothing proprietary about it (iTeX is open source). Rather, iTeX is (basically) a simplified subset of TeX. (I’m pretty sure this is also the case for other web math engines like MathJax; I doubt that any of them implements the full Turing-complete TeX language.)

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
    • CommentTimeDec 24th 2015
    • (edited Dec 24th 2015)
    @MikeShulman: Rendering in a roman font a formula like $xy$ (as opposed to the standard italic)
    _is_ a nonstandard modification of TeX.
    There is no way in which this could be considered a _subset_ of TeX.

    At least MathJax (in its recent versions) is more-or-less compliant with TeX:
    if a formula renders in MathJax at all, it will look similar to what it looks in TeX,
    so one can more-or-less pretend that one is using TeX.
    In particular, $xy$ renders xy in italic.

    This is not true for iTeX.

    (By the way, MathJax seems to (or at least claims) to support \def, and \def alone is Turing-complete.)
    • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeDec 25th 2015
    • (edited Dec 25th 2015)

    Re #9: of course, but this only strengthens my feeling that “distributivity” really isn’t the correct term for the types of things that the nLab article is trying to describe.

    A special case is where all the domain categories K iK_i in the Idea section are the same category JJ, and II is a discrete category. Here we have a canonical 2-cell

    C I×J colim J C I prod I prod I C J colim J C\array{ C^{I \times J} & \stackrel{colim_J}{\to} & C^I \\ \mathllap{prod_I} \downarrow & \Rightarrow & \downarrow \mathrlap{prod_I} \\ C^J & \underset{colim_J}{\to} & C }

    and if JJ is sifted then the 2-cell is an iso. This is what I would call commutativity or interchange of limits and colimits, and naturally so. I’d think it should still be referred to as interchange even if the K iK_i aren’t all the same.

    Distributivity refers to something else, as you said, and lacks the symmetry exhibited in the square above. While I’m at it, remark that for commutative rings, binary coproducts distribute over binary products and not the other way around. So I wouldn’t insist that it should be “distributivity of limits over colimits” or the other way around; rather I’d say (again) that I don’t think “distributive” is the right word in the first place for that article, unless I’m missing something.

    • CommentRowNumber13.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeDec 25th 2015

    Dmitri that’s true, but the question was about \rm, not about that. Note that iTeX does support the standard LaTeX version of the command, \mathrm. Also, it’s not as if you have to memorize all of this, since you can just see what it looks like, and when you notice that \rm isn’t working, get rid of it.

    • CommentRowNumber14.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeDec 25th 2015

    Todd, that 2-cell being an iso is indeed what should be called commutativity or interchange. But unless I’m very much mistaken, that is not the condition that the article distributivity of limits over colimits is considering; the latter does in fact specialize to the standard notion of distributivity of finite products over finite coproducts.

    • CommentRowNumber15.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeDec 25th 2015

    Mike, I’ll try to think about it. But isn’t it true that that condition also specializes to what I mentioned in #12? If so, why is distributivity then the preferred term?

    • CommentRowNumber16.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeDec 25th 2015

    No, I don’t think it does specialize to your #12; that’s commutativity, not distributivity.

    • CommentRowNumber17.
    • CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
    • CommentTimeDec 25th 2015
    > Note that iTeX does support the standard LaTeX version of the command, \mathrm.

    “Popular” would probably be a more accurate adjective here.
    (Is there even such a thing as a LaTeX standard?)
    Note that \mathrm was only added in LaTeX 2e, it's not present in earlier versions.
    So it's not even standard to LaTeX, only in LaTeX 2e at best (or rather a certain subset of its versions).

    In any case, \rm is what is actually used by a significant fraction of mathematicians
    (I would conservatively estimate it from below as more than 10%),
    so in my opinion is very desirable to support.

    > Also, it’s not as if you have to memorize all of this, since you can just see what it looks like,
    > and when you notice that \rm isn’t working, get rid of it.

    This is true, of course, but significantly slows down the editing of the nLab
    for any outside contributors who are unfamiliar with iTeX.
    • CommentRowNumber18.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeDec 25th 2015

    Oh, I see now where I was going wrong. Sorry for the noise.

    • CommentRowNumber19.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeDec 26th 2015

    I agree that it would be better if iTeX supported \rm too, I was just saying I don’t think the current situation is as bad as all that. In the grand scheme of things, it would probably be better if the nLab used MathJax just because it’s more common now (even though I personally prefer iTeX to MathJax — I find it a real pain to have to type \mathrm or \rm every time I want a multi-character identifier in MathJax). We have the classic “early adopter” problem of having implemented something before a standard existed (iTeX and the nLab predated MathJax), and now people have chosen a different standard and it would be substantial effort to migrate ourselves to it. There’ve been discussions of moving the nLab to MediaWiki+MathJax+etc., but I don’t know the current status of them.

    • CommentRowNumber20.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJun 24th 2017

    There is something wrong with the page distributivity of limits over colimits: the “idea” section defines only distributivity of products over colimits (with the terminology in reversed order), but then the examples include distributivity of more general limits over colimits. We need a good general definition; is there one in one of the references?

    • CommentRowNumber21.
    • CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
    • CommentTimeJun 25th 2017

    Definition 5.11 in Continuous Categories Revisited can be a candidate: D-limits distribute over E-colimits if the functor Ind_E(A)→A that replaces a formal E-colimit with its actual colimit in A preserves D-limits.

    • CommentRowNumber22.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJun 25th 2017

    Is that really a definition of distributivity rather than commutativity? Their Theorem 5.13 suggests that it incorporates both some commutativity and some distributivity.

    I feel like there should be some general equipment-theoretic definition that would include all the examples on the page and also others such as that encoded by a distributivity pullback.

    • CommentRowNumber23.
    • CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
    • CommentTimeJun 26th 2017
    • (edited Jun 26th 2017)

    Re #22: It seems like there is no “standard” treatment of distributivity of limits over colimits, and the existing expositions are a bit sloppy on this matter.

    However, the authors of that paper explicitly refer to this particular property as “distributivity” in Definition 5.11. I don’t see why it should be problematic that the distributivity of small limits over filtered colimits implies the commutativity of finite limits and filtered colimits (why not?).

    Also, take a look at their other paper (How algebraic is algebra?). Definition 4.5 there contains a similar statement for sifted colimits and small limits. They also explicitly refer to this property as distributivity and prove in Theorem 5.1 that the distributivity of small limits over sifted colimits implies the commutativity of finite product and sifted colimits.

    Also, in both papers they prove that the free completion monad Lim and the free filtered (respectively sifted) cocompletion monad Ind (respectively Sind) admit a unique distributive law in the sense of Beck. This is another argument in favor of the above definition.

    I agree that the current article on distributivity is quite sloppy and should be improved. Originally, I wrote it out of frustration with the lack of sources on distributivity, so I simply recorded the facts that I learned from these papers.

    • CommentRowNumber24.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJun 26th 2017
    • (edited Jun 26th 2017)

    I have slightly edited the Idea-section for readability, here (for instance I added the clause “assuming that these colimits exist” )

    • CommentRowNumber25.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJun 26th 2017

    Let me rephrase that: their Theorem 5.13 seems to be saying that there is no real notion of “limits distributing over colimits” in general: all we can talk about is limits commuting with colimits, and products distributing over colimits. Saying “they call it distributivity” doesn’t convince me; I want an explicit formulation that looks like distributivity.

    • CommentRowNumber26.
    • CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
    • CommentTimeJun 27th 2017
    • (edited Jun 27th 2017)

    Re #25:

    I think one can make the following observation.

    Given small categories I and K, for any diagram D: I×K→C we have a morphism f: colim_K lim_I D → lim_I colim_K D that factors as a composition hg: colim_K lim_I D → colim_{K^I} lim_I D’ → lim_I colim_K D.

    Here D’: I×K^I→I×K→C is obtained from D by precomposition.

    I-limits commute with K-colimits if and only if f is an isomorphism. I-limits distribute over K-colimits if and only if h is an isomorphism.

    This works for arbitrary categories K and I, in particular I does not have to be discrete.

    Thus distributivity coincides with commutativity if and only if g is an isomorphism, i.e., the diagonal map K→K^I is cofinal.

    Thus finite limits distribute over filtered colimits if and only if finite limits commute with filtered colimits. The same is true for finite products and sifted colimits. So in these two cases there is no difference.

    However, I see no reason why this would hold for other cases. For instance, I see no reason why distributivity of finite limits over sifted colimits should be the same as commutativity.

    As a justification for the new definition I cite Theorem 2.1 and its proof in the paper “On Algebraically Exact Categories and Essential Localizations of Varieties.”, which shows that products distribute over filtered colimits (respectively sifted colimits) if and only if the evaluation functor Ind(A)→A (respectively Sind(A)→A) preserves products.

    • CommentRowNumber27.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJun 27th 2017

    Ah-hah! Now there’s a definition I can get behind. The connection to commutativity makes much more sense now too.

    Here’s a generalization to Kan extensions. Let f:ABf:A\to B be a Grothendieck fibration, hence an exponentiable functor, let g:ZAg:Z\to A be any functor (or perhaps a Grothendieck opfibration), and form the distributivity pullback

    X p Z g A q f Y r B\array{ X & \xrightarrow{p} & Z & \xrightarrow{g} & A\\ ^q\downarrow &&&& \downarrow^f\\ Y && \xrightarrow{r} && B}

    So that Y=Π fgY = \Pi_f g and X=Π fg× BAX = \Pi_f g\times_B A. Then in any sufficiently complete category there is a Beck-Chevalley isomorphism

    r *Ran fRan qp *g * r^* \circ Ran_f \cong Ran_q \circ p^* \circ g^*

    (using the fact that ff is a fibration, so that any pullback of it is an exact square). The mate of this isomorphism is a transformation

    Lan rRan qp *Ran fLan g Lan_r \circ Ran_q \circ p^* \to Ran_f \circ Lan_g

    and we say that Ran fRan_f distributes over Lan gLan_g (in some category) if this map is an isomorphism.

    When generalized to internal categories and fibrations, this includes the distributivity encoded by a distributivity pullback: the latter says exactly that indexed products distribute over indexed coproducts in the self-indexing of a locally cartesian closed category. It also generalizes to derivators and other contexts for formal category theory.

    It becomes your definition when specialized to B=1B=1 and gg a product projection. Conversely, if gg is an opfibration, then the general statement follows from its pullback along all points b:1Bb:1\to B, since such pullbacks preserve dependent products, left Kan extensions along opfibrations, and right Kan extensions along fibrations, and jointly reflect isomorphisms (one of the axioms of a derivator). But even in the case B=1B=1 it’s not obvious to me that we can restrict further to the case when gg is a product projection without loss of generality.

    • CommentRowNumber28.
    • CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
    • CommentTimeJun 29th 2017

    Re #27: I completely rewrote the article and incorporated my comments above.

    Perhaps you can add your observations about Kan extensions to it? Can we give an example of distributing Kan extensions apart from distributivity pullbacks?

    • CommentRowNumber29.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJun 29th 2017

    Thanks! I’ll see what I can do. Can you add a proof or a citation that the “abstract formulation” agrees with the explicit one?

    • CommentRowNumber30.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJun 29th 2017

    Okay, I added the Kan extensions definition, and reorganized the page a bit to put all the definitions together and all the examples together. Still missing a comparison of the definitions.

    • CommentRowNumber31.
    • CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
    • CommentTimeJan 15th 2018
    I added a reference (just published) for the comparison of the abstract definition and the explicit definition.