Not signed in (Sign In)

Start a new discussion

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 beauty bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality education elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration 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 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 multicategories 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 science set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory string string-theory subobject superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory 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.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 7th 2018
    • (edited Jul 7th 2018)

    It’s still not quite right, is it? (here) After

    Moreover, up to equivalence, every Grothendieck topos arises this way:

    isn’t there the clause of accessible embedding missing? I.e. instead of

    the equivalence classes of left exact reflective subcategories PSh(𝒞)\mathcal{E} \hookrightarrow PSh(\mathcal{C}) of the category of presheaves

    it should have

    the equivalence classes of left exact reflective and accessivley embedded subcategories PSh(𝒞)\mathcal{E} \hookrightarrow PSh(\mathcal{C}) of the category of presheaves

    Or else, by the prop that follows, it should say

    the equivalence classes of left exact reflective and locally presentable subcategories PSh(𝒞)\mathcal{E} \hookrightarrow PSh(\mathcal{C}) of the category of presheaves

    No?

    (This is just a question. I didn’t make an edit. Yet.)

    diff, v3, current

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeJul 7th 2018
    • (edited Jul 7th 2018)

    It looks right to me as is. There should be an essential equivalence between left exact idempotent monads on a topos and Lawvere-Tierney topologies j:ΩΩj: \Omega \to \Omega, and if one has a Lawvere-Tierney topology in a presheaf topos, one ought to be recover a Grothendieck topology whose sheaves correspond to the algebras of the monad or objects orthogonal to jj-dense monomorphisms. These statements do not bring in accessibility conditions; I’d think accessibility of the subtopos embedding should be a consequence however.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeJul 7th 2018

    See also Johnstone’s C.2.1.11:

    For a small category CC, the assignment JSh(C,J)J \mapsto Sh(C, J) is a bijection from the set of Grothendieck coverages on CC to the class of reflective subcategories of [C op,Set][C^{op}, Set] with cartesian reflector.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 7th 2018

    Okay, thanks!!

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 7th 2018

    added the additional pointer to Johnstone that Todd kindly provided. Also highlighted a bit more the remark (here) about the need to require accessibility (only) in the generality of \infty-toposes, lest I forget about this once again next time.

    diff, v4, current

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJul 7th 2018

    Yes, this is an interesting quirk. Is it known that accessibility is definitely necessary for \infty-toposes? I.e. is there an example of a non-accessible left exact reflective subcategory of an \infty-topos?

Add your comments
  • Please log in or leave your comment as a "guest post". If commenting as a "guest", please include your name in the message as a courtesy. Note: only certain categories allow guest posts.
  • To produce a hyperlink to an nLab entry, simply put double square brackets around its name, e.g. [[category]]. To use (La)TeX mathematics in your post, make sure Markdown+Itex is selected below and put your mathematics between dollar signs as usual. Only a subset of the usual TeX math commands are accepted: see here for a list.

  • (Help)