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.
    • CommentAuthorHurkyl
    • CommentTimeApr 3rd 2018
    In the adjoint functor theorem page, Theorem 2.2 uses language that very strongly suggests the conclusions are meant to be "if and only if" statements, but could also be read as emphatic language for a mere "if" statement.

    In particular, if F is a functor between locally presentable categories and F has a left adjoint, it's unclear if the nLab page is asserting that F is accessible.

    While the following text does say that the condition of being accessible is "necessary", the example given at the top of section 3 strongly suggests that this really is sloppy language -- that the "necessity" is shown merely by giving a counterexample to theorem 2.2 if you remove the hypothesis that F is accessible.

    This section could use some rewording to make it more clear what the correct statement is.
    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeApr 3rd 2018

    The relevant statement in Adamek and Rosicky is: a functor G:CDG: C \to D between locally presentable categories is a right adjoint if and only if it preserves limits and is accessible (meaning it preserves λ\lambda-directed colimits for some regular cardinal λ\lambda.

    I can make an adjustment to remove doubts.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeApr 3rd 2018

    Okay, I removed the ambiguity in language, to make clear we were indeed talking about logical necessity. Please have a look. (And thanks for pointing out how it read.)

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorHurkyl
    • CommentTimeApr 3rd 2018
    It's crystal clear now. Thank you!
    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 3rd 2018

    I usually write “precisely if” instead of “if and only if”, as it seems to be more decent prose to me. I wasn’t aware that it comes across as ambiguous.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeApr 3rd 2018

    Normally I don’t think it would be taken as ambiguous. But questions were raised about it after Hurkyl was trying to put it all together with other stuff on that page. So I was trying to remove every last vestige of doubt by using language whose meaning cannot be misread.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeApr 3rd 2018

    I would probably consider “if and only if” to be more precise than “precisely if”, and it doesn’t seem at all indecent to me. (-: