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.
   • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
   • CommentTimeOct 20th 2015
   • (edited Oct 20th 2015)
   • PermaLink
   Author: David_Corfield
   Format: MarkdownItexFrom that [discussion](http://nforum.ncatlab.org/discussion/6773/adjoint-logic/) on temporal logic, I was thinking about the comparison of 'henceforth' with necessarily, and why doing base change and dependent product seemed different for $Time_1 \rightrightarrows Time_0$ and $Worlds \to \ast$. I concluded that we can reformulate the latter as pullback $PairsAccessibleWorlds \rightrightarrows Worlds$ and the comparison is much closer. So then we seem to have greater flexibility with the latter in the sense that I can't do the projection onto classes trick with time, $Time_0 \to ??$. Equivalence relations may be treated either way, but not in general. But then when it comes to representation theory, wouldn't the analogy with $Worlds$ go: * take the epimorphism $Worlds \to \ast$, then pullback to $PairsAccessibleWorlds \rightrightarrows Worlds$ * take the epimorphism $\ast \to B G$, then pullback to $G \rightrightarrows \ast$ But I'm not going to want to base change from $\ast$ in the latter case, just because there is a disanalogy in that unlike $Worlds \to \ast$ it's not $\ast \to B G$, but $B G \to \ast$ that I care about.

   From that discussion on temporal logic, I was thinking about the comparison of ’henceforth’ with necessarily, and why doing base change and dependent product seemed different for $Time_1 \rightrightarrows Time_0$ and $Worlds \to \ast$. I concluded that we can reformulate the latter as pullback $PairsAccessibleWorlds \rightrightarrows Worlds$ and the comparison is much closer.

   So then we seem to have greater flexibility with the latter in the sense that I can’t do the projection onto classes trick with time, $Time_0 \to ??$. Equivalence relations may be treated either way, but not in general.

   But then when it comes to representation theory, wouldn’t the analogy with $Worlds$ go:

   • take the epimorphism $Worlds \to \ast$, then pullback to $PairsAccessibleWorlds \rightrightarrows Worlds$
   • take the epimorphism $\ast \to B G$, then pullback to $G \rightrightarrows \ast$

   But I’m not going to want to base change from $\ast$ in the latter case, just because there is a disanalogy in that unlike $Worlds \to \ast$ it’s not $\ast \to B G$, but $B G \to \ast$ that I care about.

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
   • CommentTimeOct 20th 2015
   • PermaLink
   Author: DavidRoberts
   Format: MarkdownItexCan we not have an epi $Worlds \to Time_0$, and then induce the groupoid with objects $Worlds$ from $Time_1\rightrightarrows Time_0$?

   Can we not have an epi $Worlds \to Time_0$, and then induce the groupoid with objects $Worlds$ from $Time_1\rightrightarrows Time_0$?