added example of the theory of an elementary topos.

Anonymous

]]>Added more detail about what it means syntactically versus semantically for “every algebraic theory to be a coherent theory”.

]]>Heh, this is one of the problems with using the word “theory” to refer to the classifying category *of* a theory. I would say the intended meaning is that a *syntactic* algebraic theory *simply is* a coherent theory without any modification required. This is a much more trivial observation than the theorem about embeddings of categories.

Clarified sentence about algebraic theories being coherent, to avoid the possible misconception that every cartesian category is a coherent category. I think this is the meaning that was intended; please correct me if I’ve misunderstood the statement.

]]>Added reference to

]]>Corrected number of reference to the elephant; D1.5.13 instead of D.1.5.9

Peter Arndt

]]>OK, thanks.

]]>It’s different; I edited the page.

]]>I see the relationship, but the concept is not discussed there. Is it the same thing, just on a coherent category that happens to be infinitary-coherent? Or is it a different coverage?

]]>Presumably because geometric = infinitary-coherent?

]]>Done. But why does geometric coverage also redirect there?

]]>Sure.

]]>Is it appropriate to include coherent site as a redirect to coherent coverage? I think the terminology is used.

]]>Thank you! These are very useful additions. I don’t feel strongly about renaming the page ’coherent theory’.

]]>Prompted by the discussion in the other thread I added many of the nice properties of coherent logic to coherent logic.

]]>I merged coherent formula into coherent logic and added redirects; I didn’t see a good reason to keep them separate. Perhaps the page should actually be called coherent theory to match with geometric theory, or vice versa, any thoughts?

]]>