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 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 elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration finite foundations functional-analysis functor galois-theory 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 lie-theory limit limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic manifolds mathematics measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nforum nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number 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 string string-theory 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.
    • CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
    • CommentTimeMay 1st 2019

    Page created, but author did not leave any comments.

    v1, current

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeMay 5th 2019

    Added a link to quasi-topological space.

    diff, v2, current

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeJun 11th 2019

    Added a comparison made to condensed sets as not forming a topos.

    diff, v3, current

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeJun 11th 2019

    Added that the topos of pyknotic sets is not cohesive.

    diff, v3, current

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeJun 11th 2019

    Added a few more bits and pieces.

    diff, v3, current

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJun 11th 2019

    Have not been following any details, but just glancing at the entry right now, something needs qualification here: Presently it says that condensed sets do not form a topos, but following the link gives that condensed sets are sheaves on some site. Something amiss here. I guess some size issues?

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeJun 11th 2019

    Oh yes, I remember thinking that was odd.

    As emphasised by Scholze, however, the distinction between pyknotic and condensed does have some consequences beyond philosophical matters. For example, the indiscrete topological space {0,1}\{0,1\}, viewed as a sheaf on the site of compacta, is pyknotic but not condensed (relative to any universe). By allowing the presence of such pathological objects into the category of pyknotic sets, we guarantee that it is a topos, which is not true for the category of condensed sets. (p. 4)

    But Scholtze speaks of the topos of condensed sets. It sounds like size is at stake. What’s going on exactly?

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJun 11th 2019

    It sounds like it’s just size technicalities.

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeJun 11th 2019
    • (edited Jun 11th 2019)

    Seems likely. The paragraph before the one I cited in #7, says of the difference between approaches that ” it is a matter of set theory”.

    But still, what should be written on our pages when one person says condensed sets form a topos and another says they don’t?

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJun 11th 2019

    In the other discussion I just linked to, it sounded to me as though condensed sets were an elementary topos but not a Grothendieck one. But I have not actually read any of the literature myself.

    Could we include on the page some explanation of the origin of the bizarre word “pyknotic”, whatever it might be?

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeJun 11th 2019

    Added etymology.

    diff, v5, current

    • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeJun 11th 2019

    For any uncountable strong limit cardinal κ\kappa, the category of κ\kappa-condensed sets is the category of sheaves on the site of profinite sets of cardinality less than κ\kappa, with finite jointly surjective families of maps as covers.

    The category of condensed sets is the (large) colimit of the category of κ\kappa-condensed sets along the filtered poset of all uncountable strong limit cardinals κ\kappa.

    • CommentRowNumber13.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJun 11th 2019

    Thanks. I wonder whether it is related to the infinitary-pretopos of small sheaves on the large site of all profinite sets.

    • CommentRowNumber14.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeMar 5th 2020

    Added a talk given by Clark Barwick, apparently 1 of 4. Twitter conversation then provided more definitions, so I’ve added these.

    diff, v6, current

    • CommentRowNumber15.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeMar 5th 2020

    Can you give a link to these Twitter conversations?

    • CommentRowNumber16.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeMar 5th 2020

    I’m not sure there’s anything of permanent value there, but it start with Emily Riehl here.

    • CommentRowNumber17.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeMar 5th 2020

    It would be good to have a better sense of why they’re deliberately avoiding cohesion - something to do with a mismatch of topology and algebra.

    I suspect there’s some connection to Lurie’s interest in Makkai, as here. Perhaps the Awodey school alternative to Makkai is relevant. All very vague, I know.

    • CommentRowNumber18.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeMar 6th 2020

    Since I was following the first of Barwick’s lectures I thought I’d jot down some of the motivation he gives. Haven’t finished yet.

    diff, v9, current

    • CommentRowNumber19.
    • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
    • CommentTimeMar 6th 2020

    There is a page: https://shifted-project.github.io/ on his SHIFTED project, that may be relevant. I have not yet tackled the pyknotic paper, but have glanced at some of the others.

    • CommentRowNumber20.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeMar 6th 2020

    SHIFTED: Stratified Homotopy Invariants, Field Theories, Exodromy, and Duality

    Thank goodness it wasn’t ’Actions’ rather than ’Invariants’.

    • CommentRowNumber21.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeMar 6th 2020

    There’s some connection between what they’re doing in BarHai19, sec 4.3 and Lurie’s work on Makkai’s conceptual completeness, as mentioned here.

    • CommentRowNumber22.
    • CommentAuthorSam Staton
    • CommentTimeMar 7th 2020
    Mike cited quasi-topological spaces, which do seem relevant. But do the pyknoticians ever reference or compare to these explicitly?
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)