In the Definition I have replaced the description of the morphisms as “-invariant maps” by “-equivariant functions” – for clarity.
(Of course the -equivariant functions are the -invariants in the mapping space. If that perspective is meant and felt to be crucial here, then we should make that explicit in the entry.)
]]>I went through the section “For internal groups actions” (here) and fixed/adjusted the wording a little. In the lead-in paragraphs I tried to clarify the cross-referencing, for ease of the reader. In particular, where it said
is itself a topos, by the same proof.
I added pointer back to Theorem 3.11 (here) – and that theorem itself I gave a lead-in sentence to indicate that it summarizes the preceding statements (for it looked like not having a proof at all).
]]>Explained the right adjoint
Kevin Arlin
]]>