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 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 internal-categories k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure 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).

nLab > Latest Changes: conceptual completeness

Bottom of Page

1 to 11 of 11

  1.  
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeJul 27th 2016

    This page just had a couple of references, so I’ve added the idea and more references.

    I came to this subject via Lurie’s MO question. Isn’t it a shame that such a highly regarded mathematician reaching out to the categorical logic community doesn’t receive an answer from them?

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeJul 27th 2016
    • (edited Jul 27th 2016)

    Generational difference. I don’t see Johnstone, Hyland or their peers on MO, and the categories mailing list, which they read, is stagnating, possibly people are dissuaded by well-known vocal doyens.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeJul 27th 2016
    • (edited Jul 27th 2016)

    But there is a younger generation as I indicate there.

    Given your G+ expressed interest in the pro-etale site, note how it crops up in this comment to me.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJul 27th 2016
    • (edited Jul 27th 2016)

    It seems reasonably likely to me that his question is not one that has been considered before, in which case the lack of an answer would be exactly the expected behavior.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeJul 27th 2016

    Well I guess. On the other hand, there’s usually a comment or two to be seen even when nobody has the answer, and you might expect that logical scheme approach to be able to say something.

    Anyway, I was just taking it as instance of lack of communication, rather than something to single out, even if, given that it involves JL, recently seen doubting that other piece of categorical logical known as HoTT, a missed opportunity.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJul 27th 2016

    I agree that it would be nice if the community had an answer for him.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorjesse
    • CommentTimeSep 17th 2016

    I’ve expanded the page at conceptual completeness, and have remarked on the relation to Makkai duality (which I’ll update later) and the logical scheme approach of Awodey and Breiner. (Grey links to be fleshed out).

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeSep 17th 2016

    if f:T 1→T 2f : T_1 \to T_2 is a pretopos morphism and −∘f:Hom Pretop(−,T 2)→Hom Pretop(−,T 1)- \circ f : \operatorname{Hom}_{\mathbf{Pretop}}(-, T_2) \to \operatorname{Hom}_{\mathbf{Pretop}}(-,T_1) is an equivalence, then ff was also.

    You mean

    if f:T 1→T 2f : T_1 \to T_2 is a pretopos morphism and −∘f:Hom Pretop(T 2,Set)→Hom Pretop(T 1,Set)- \circ f : \operatorname{Hom}_{\mathbf{Pretop}}(T_2, Set) \to \operatorname{Hom}_{\mathbf{Pretop}}(T_1, Set) is an equivalence, then ff was also?

    Or am I missing something?

    And above

    Hom Pretop(−,X):Pretop→Cat\operatorname{Hom}_{\mathbf{Pretop}}(-,X) : \mathbf{Pretop} \to \mathbf{Cat} reflects equivalences.

    is

    Hom Pretop(−,Set):Pretop→Cat\operatorname{Hom}_{\mathbf{Pretop}}(-,Set) : \mathbf{Pretop} \to \mathbf{Cat} reflects equivalences?

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorjesse
    • CommentTimeSep 17th 2016

    Ah, that’s right.

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorjesse
    • CommentTimeSep 17th 2016

    Corrected! Thanks, David.

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeJan 8th 2019
    • (edited Jan 8th 2019)

    Added Lurie’s new article

    diff, v10, current

1 to 11 of 11

  1.