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: reflective localization

Bottom of Page

1 to 13 of 13

  1.  
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJun 28th 2018
    • (edited Jun 28th 2018)

    I have spelled out statement and proof of:

    1. every reflection is a reflective localization,

    2. reflective localizations are given by full subcategories of local objects.

    I have also tried to produce decent cross-links to various entries that mention something related. But there will be more left to do.

    diff, v3, current

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJun 29th 2018

    Conversely, when is reflection onto a full subcategory of local objects also a localization in the sense of universally inverting the given morphisms?

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJun 29th 2018

    I have to puzzle through the terminology – you’re asking if, given a category with weak equivalences (C,W)(C,W) such that the full subcategory Loc WLoc_W of WW-local objects in reflective, whether the reflector C→Loc WC \to Loc_W is equivalent to the localization functor C→C[W −1]C\to C[W^{-1}] that universally inverts WW?

    By property (1), it seems that this is equivalent to asking whether every functor C→DC\to D that inverts WW also inverts every WW-local equivalence (morphism that is seen as an isomorphism by every WW-local object)?

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJun 30th 2018
    • (edited Jun 30th 2018)

    Yes, for WW any class of morphisms. In “Modalities in homotopy type theory” you write: “We will not be concerned here with the universal property of the localized category”. Suppose you were concerned, what could you say?

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJun 30th 2018
    • (edited Jun 30th 2018)

    Well, it is true in general that every left adjoint F:C→DF:C\to D that inverts WW also inverts every WW-local equivalence. For if GG is its right adjoint, then FF inverting WW means that GG takes values in WW-local objects, which in turn implies that FF preserves WW-local equivalences. Since the reflector C→Loc WC\to Loc_W is also a left adjoint, it follows that it is the coinverter of WW in the 2-category of categories and left adjoints (which contains, in particular, the 2-category of locally presentable categories and left adjoints).

    However, for non-adjoints I think it is false; here is a proposed counterexample. Let PP be a poset with binary meets but no top element, and let C=P ▹C = P^\triangleright be PP with a new top element ⊤\top adjoined. Take W=MorP⊊MorCW = Mor P \subsetneq Mor C, i.e. every inequality x≤yx\le y in CC where y≠⊤y\neq \top. Then for any x∈Px\in P there is a y∈Py\in P with y≰xy\nleq x (since PP has no top element), but x∧y≤xx\wedge y \le x, so xx does not invert the weak equivalence x∧y≤yx\wedge y \le y; thus no element of PP is WW-local. But of course ⊤\top is WW-local, so Loc W={⊤}Loc_W = \{\top\} is contractible and reflective. However, C[W −1]=P[W −1] ▹C[W^{-1}] = P[W^{-1}]^\triangleright, which is not contractible unless P=∅P = \emptyset; thus they are inequivalent.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorRichard Williamson
    • CommentTimeJun 30th 2018
    • (edited Jun 30th 2018)

    Have not read the thread or page closely, so might be missing something, but is this not just a question of whether WW is saturated? If I recall correctly, it is an if and only if.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJun 30th 2018
    • (edited Jun 30th 2018)

    Hi Mike, thanks for the bit about left adjoints. I was just wondering about this being the right condition, since this is how Hovey’s book defines localization.

    Richard, yes, every reflector is the localization at the morphisms it inverts, but I was hoping for a tighter condition. I suppose localization by left adjoins is useful here.

  8. Yes, perhaps one could say that one is asking for conditions to ensure saturation. The one at saturated class of morphisms is no doubt already familiar to you.

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJun 30th 2018

    Okay, I have recorded the statement about left-adjoint localization, here.

  10. arrow direction

    Tim Richter

    diff, v8, current

  11. typo

    Tim Richter

    diff, v8, current

    • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 20th 2022

    by email, I am being asked for an original reference (apparently by Gabriel & Zisman) for Prop. 3.2 (characterization of reflective localizations).

    It looks like I wrote that proof, but I don’t know a standard reference off the top of my head. If somebody does, please drop us a note.

    diff, v11, current

    • CommentRowNumber13.
    • CommentAuthorjesuslop
    • CommentTimeJul 22nd 2024

    In “Idea”, changed reflective localizations at a class S or morphism to reflective localizations at a class S of morphisms

    diff, v14, current

1 to 13 of 13

  1.