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 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

1. • CommentRowNumber1.
   • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
   • CommentTimeAug 4th 2015
   • PermaLink
   Author: Todd_Trimble
   Format: MarkdownItexI have started an article [[countable chain condition]]. So far most of the discussion is about topological spaces. (Additional small recent edits at [[separable space]] and [[metric space]].)

   I have started an article countable chain condition. So far most of the discussion is about topological spaces. (Additional small recent edits at separable space and metric space.)

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeAug 4th 2015
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexThat's a lot of info! I wonder what the "right" constructive version of this condition is. The notion of antichain doesn't seem very constructive as-is.

   That’s a lot of info!

   I wonder what the “right” constructive version of this condition is. The notion of antichain doesn’t seem very constructive as-is.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
   • CommentTimeAug 4th 2015
   • PermaLink
   Author: Todd_Trimble
   Format: MarkdownItexThese and other nLab things I've started are notes made on the side as I dip occasionally in Kunen's set theory book, which I took with me on a recent vacation, thinking that I might try once and for all to do a sympathetic reading of consistency results as written by ZF-ists (more or less). Their style is somewhat alien to me. I didn't try to think too hard about constructive versions, but I agree this would be nice to know. Maybe Toby has thought some about this.

   These and other nLab things I’ve started are notes made on the side as I dip occasionally in Kunen’s set theory book, which I took with me on a recent vacation, thinking that I might try once and for all to do a sympathetic reading of consistency results as written by ZF-ists (more or less). Their style is somewhat alien to me.

   I didn’t try to think too hard about constructive versions, but I agree this would be nice to know. Maybe Toby has thought some about this.

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
   • CommentTimeAug 4th 2015
   • (edited Aug 4th 2015)
   • PermaLink
   Author: DavidRoberts
   Format: MarkdownItexThe more general case of the $\kappa$-cc for regular $\kappa$ is what is mostly used, and to preserve power sets on taking sheaves. Since the notion of regular cardinal is a bit difficult without AC, I expect for the constructive definition of ccc one really wants a statement that would usually be a theorem in classical maths.

   The more general case of the $\kappa$-cc for regular $\kappa$ is what is mostly used, and to preserve power sets on taking sheaves. Since the notion of regular cardinal is a bit difficult without AC, I expect for the constructive definition of ccc one really wants a statement that would usually be a theorem in classical maths.

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
   • CommentTimeAug 4th 2015
   • (edited Aug 4th 2015)
   • PermaLink
   Author: DavidRoberts
   Format: MarkdownItexMore generally, I believe there should be a relative form of this. Given a fibration of sites a la Moerdijk, there should be a relative $\kappa$-cc, corresponding to the case when the (inverse image part of the) induced geometric morphism preserves the appropriate power objects.

   More generally, I believe there should be a relative form of this. Given a fibration of sites a la Moerdijk, there should be a relative $\kappa$-cc, corresponding to the case when the (inverse image part of the) induced geometric morphism preserves the appropriate power objects.

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
   • CommentTimeAug 4th 2015
   • (edited Aug 4th 2015)
   • PermaLink
   Author: DavidRoberts
   Format: MarkdownItexSorry, I'm being a bit slow. Here's a nice perspective on ccc (and $\kappa$-cc) that I came up with a little while ago. The exact statement may have to be fine tuned, but it was something like: a poset $\mathbb{P}$ satisfies the ccc (resp. $\kappa$-cc) if (and only if?) sieves (on $\top$? possibly for all objects) for the double-negation topology can be refined by sieves generated by no more that $\aleph_0$-many maps (resp. $\kappa$-many). Equivalently, I think, there is an equivalent site equipped with merely a coverage such that all covering families have size bounded by $\aleph_0$ ($\kappa$). A set theorist put it to me once as: there's not much difference between an maximal antichain and a dense subset, the latter obviously I'm not sure if this is best phrased (in the general case) as: the (indexing set of the) family of maps in such a covering family is a subquotient of $\kappa$. This plays well with the situation with sheaves as I mentioned above, and has clear extensions to arbitrary sites, not just $(\mathbb{P},\neg\neg)$

   Sorry, I’m being a bit slow. Here’s a nice perspective on ccc (and $\kappa$-cc) that I came up with a little while ago. The exact statement may have to be fine tuned, but it was something like: a poset $\mathbb{P}$ satisfies the ccc (resp. $\kappa$-cc) if (and only if?) sieves (on $\top$? possibly for all objects) for the double-negation topology can be refined by sieves generated by no more that $\aleph_0$-many maps (resp. $\kappa$-many). Equivalently, I think, there is an equivalent site equipped with merely a coverage such that all covering families have size bounded by $\aleph_0$ ($\kappa$). A set theorist put it to me once as: there’s not much difference between an maximal antichain and a dense subset, the latter obviously

   I’m not sure if this is best phrased (in the general case) as: the (indexing set of the) family of maps in such a covering family is a subquotient of $\kappa$. This plays well with the situation with sheaves as I mentioned above, and has clear extensions to arbitrary sites, not just $(\mathbb{P},\neg\neg)$

7. • CommentRowNumber7.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeAug 5th 2015
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexWow, neat! I can sort of vaguely see how that might work, but it would be nice to have it written out. Does that mean that the $\neg\neg$-topology is an "$\aleph_1$-ary site" as [here](http://www.tac.mta.ca/tac/volumes/27/7/27-07abs.html)?

   Wow, neat! I can sort of vaguely see how that might work, but it would be nice to have it written out. Does that mean that the $\neg\neg$-topology is an “$\aleph_1$-ary site” as here?

8. • CommentRowNumber8.
   • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
   • CommentTimeAug 5th 2015
   • PermaLink
   Author: DavidRoberts
   Format: MarkdownItexMaybe just a _weakly_ $\kappa$-ary site, for a poset satisfying $\kappa$-cc, and $\kappa$ here is the minimum possible. The prelimit stuff might be related to what is called being $\lt \kappa$-directed (or poss the related $\kappa$-closed). Note one can get off-by-one errors here (as in, these are ordinals, so there's a $\leq\kappa$ version)

   Maybe just a weakly $\kappa$-ary site, for a poset satisfying $\kappa$-cc, and $\kappa$ here is the minimum possible. The prelimit stuff might be related to what is called being $\lt \kappa$-directed (or poss the related $\kappa$-closed). Note one can get off-by-one errors here (as in, these are ordinals, so there’s a $\leq\kappa$ version)

9. • CommentRowNumber9.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeAug 5th 2015
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexAh, right. Anyway, cool! If you ever feel like adding that proof to the page, it would be great...

   Ah, right. Anyway, cool! If you ever feel like adding that proof to the page, it would be great…

10. • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorDaniel Luckhardt
    • CommentTimeMar 2nd 2020
    • PermaLink
    Author: Daniel Luckhardt
    Format: MarkdownItexAdded template on countability properties. <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/diff/countable+chain+condition/5">diff</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/countable+chain+condition/5">v5</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/countable+chain+condition">current</a>

    Added template on countability properties.

    diff, v5, current

11. • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeMar 2nd 2020
    • PermaLink
    Author: Todd_Trimble
    Format: MarkdownItexDaniel, while this is very nice and should be put *somewhere* on the nLab, here it is unfortunately out of place.

    Daniel, while this is very nice and should be put somewhere on the nLab, here it is unfortunately out of place.

12. • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeMar 3rd 2020
    • PermaLink
    Author: Todd_Trimble
    Format: MarkdownItexI'll rescind my last comment. It doesn't look so out of place to me today.

    I’ll rescind my last comment. It doesn’t look so out of place to me today.