Not signed in (Sign In)

Start a new discussion

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 bundle bundles calculus 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 finite foundations functional-analysis functor galois-theory gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity 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 homology homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory infinity integration integration-theory itex k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory 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 planar 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 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.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeAug 4th 2015

    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.)

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeAug 4th 2015

    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.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeAug 4th 2015

    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.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeAug 4th 2015
    • (edited Aug 4th 2015)

    The more general case of the κ\kappa-cc for regular κ\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.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeAug 4th 2015
    • (edited Aug 4th 2015)

    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 κ\kappa-cc, corresponding to the case when the (inverse image part of the) induced geometric morphism preserves the appropriate power objects.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeAug 4th 2015
    • (edited Aug 4th 2015)

    Sorry, I’m being a bit slow. Here’s a nice perspective on ccc (and κ\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. κ\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 0\aleph_0-many maps (resp. κ\kappa-many). Equivalently, I think, there is an equivalent site equipped with merely a coverage such that all covering families have size bounded by 0\aleph_0 (κ\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 κ\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)

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeAug 5th 2015

    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 “ 1\aleph_1-ary site” as here?

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeAug 5th 2015

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

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeAug 5th 2015

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

  1. Added template on countability properties.

    diff, v5, current

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeMar 2nd 2020

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

    • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeMar 3rd 2020

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

Add your comments
  • Please log in or leave your comment as a "guest post". If commenting as a "guest", please include your name in the message as a courtesy. Note: only certain categories allow guest posts.
  • To produce a hyperlink to an nLab entry, simply put double square brackets around its name, e.g. [[category]]. To use (La)TeX mathematics in your post, make sure Markdown+Itex is selected below and put your mathematics between dollar signs as usual. Only a subset of the usual TeX math commands are accepted: see here for a list.

  • (Help)