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 k-theory lie-theory limit 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 subobject 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.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeNov 30th 2016

    I added some discussion to Hausdorff space of how the localic and spatial versions compare in classical and constructive mathematics, including in particular the fact that I just learned (in discussion with Martin Escardo and Andrej Bauer) that a discrete locale is Hausdorff iff it has decidable equality.

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeFeb 3rd 2017

    I added to Hausdorff space a theorem characterizing some localically strongly Hausdorff spaces in terms of apartness relations, which is a sort of dual or converse to the theorem I recently added to apartness relation.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorTim Campion
    • CommentTimeOct 1st 2018

    Clarified a confusing remark about separatedness in different categories. A separated scheme is certainly not the same thing as a scheme whose underlying Zariski locale is Hausdorff. I doubt even that a separated scheme is the same thing as a scheme whose underlying Zariski locale is separated over the classifying topos for local rings.

    diff, v45, current

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthortphyahoo
    • CommentTimeMay 4th 2020
    • (edited May 4th 2020)
    Some questions on "6. Beyond topological spaces Hausdorff locales"

    first sentence: "The most obvious definition for a locale X to be Hausdorff is that its diagonal X→X×X is a closed (and hence proper) inclusion."

    -- Is "inclusion" same as "embedding of topological spaces" nlab page? If so I would link explicitly.

    Is this definition incorrect because of the edge case discussed subsequently? If so I would say it is incorrect (or imprecisve) straight away.

    At there is "This constructive variety of notions of closed subspace gives rise to a corresponding variety of notions of Hausdorff space when applied to the diagonal subspace." I understand this definition is classical, but I wonder if that link has anything relevant to the current topic.

    second sentence: "However, if X is a sober space regarded as a locale, this might not coincide with the condition for X to be Hausdorff as a space, since the Cartesian product X×X in the category Loc of locales might not coincide with the product in the category Top of tpological spaces (the Tychonoff product)."

    Can this be rephrased as "However, if LX is the locale of opens of a sober space X, closed diagonal of LX might not correspond with Hausdorff X, since the Cartesian product in the category Loc of locales might not coincide with the product in the category Top of topological spaces (the Tychonoff product)"

    -- Is "cartesian product XxX in the category Loc" the same as "product in the category Loc" ?

    A concrete example where the two products are not the same, would be helpful here. there would be my best guess as a starting point, but it's a just a guess. Is there an example here, or elsewhere, where the two notions of product are not the same?
    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
    • CommentTimeMay 4th 2020

    Re #4: This notion of “inclusion” is discussed at sublocale.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJan 22nd 2021

    I have added statement and proof (here) that in the category of Hausdorff spaces, inclusions of dense subsets are epi.

    Briefly mentioned the converse and added pointer to

    • Jérôme Lapuyade-Lahorgue, The epimorphisms of the category Haus are exactly the image-dense morphisms (arXiv:1810.00778)

    diff, v47, current

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeJan 25th 2021
    • (edited Jan 25th 2021)

    Surely a much cleaner proof is to recognize that the equalizer of two morphisms f,g:XYf, g: X \rightrightarrows Y can be computed as a pullback

    E Y δ X (f,g) Y×Y\array{ E & \to & Y \\ \downarrow & & \downarrow \mathrlap{\delta} \\ X & \underset{(f, g)}{\to} & Y \times Y }

    where δ:YY×Y\delta: Y \to Y \times Y is a closed inclusion, by Hausdorffness. By continuity, the pullback inclusion EXE \to X is also closed. By assumption, this inclusion contains a dense subset AXA \hookrightarrow X. Being therefore dense and closed, EXE \to X is all of XX. Hence f=gf = g on all of XX.

    (By the way, this description of an equalizer as a pullback should probably replace what is currently at equalizer. I can get to this later.)

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeFeb 17th 2021

    Put in the simplified proof.

    diff, v48, current

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeFeb 17th 2021

    It looks like the proof I had written got deleted. I have re-instantiated it and added brief indication for the reader that one proof is abstract category-theoretic and the other is concretely point-set topological.

    diff, v49, current

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeFeb 17th 2021

    Sorry about the deletion.

    I don’t think of one as being “abstract” and the other as being “explicit” – they are both quite explicit. (For example, that “dense” means the closure is the entire space is the very first line of dense subspace.) And “abstract” is for some people a skunked term. Thus I slightly adjusted the language.

    diff, v50, current

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeOct 19th 2021

    I have !includeed (here) a Properties-section “In terms of lifting properties” as discussed in another thread: here

    diff, v55, current

  1. update the stale reference to van Munster


    diff, v58, current

  2. added redirect for sequentially Hausdorff


    diff, v59, current

    • CommentRowNumber14.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 25th 2023

    added pointer to:

    diff, v60, current

    • CommentRowNumber15.
    • CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
    • CommentTimeJun 30th 2023



    First introduced by Hausdorff in Grundzüge der Mengenlehre, Hausdorff spaces were the original concept of a topological space. Later the Hausdorffness condition was dropped, apparently first by Kuratowski in 1920s.

    diff, v61, current