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: sheaf toposes are equivalently the left exact reflective subcategories of presheaf toposes

Bottom of Page

1 to 9 of 9

  1.  
    • 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 ℰ↪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 ℰ↪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 ℰ↪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:Ω→Ωj: \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 J↦Sh(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?

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeDec 16th 2021

    The remark (here) on topological localizations being accessible pointed to HTT Prop. 6.2.1.5. I have changed that to read “Cor. 6.2.1.6”, where the statement is actually made explicit.

    diff, v6, current

  8. I found the references impossible to follow, so I wrote my own.

    Shane

    diff, v7, current

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 5th 2022

    Thanks. Each time I want to reference this fact, I keep feeling we once had a detailed discussion of it on the nnLab somewhere, only to not find it. Maybe we never did.

    diff, v8, current

1 to 9 of 9

  1.