Mentioned that the (opposite of the) 2-category of Grothendieck toposes is 2-monadic over the 2-category of locally presentable categories.

]]>Mentioned that the 2-category of Grothendieck toposes is enriched over the 2-category of accessible categories with directed colimits.

]]>added redirects for Giraud frame and Giraud frames and a reference to

- {#Vickers22} Steven Vickers,
*Generalized point-free spaces, pointwise*[arXiv:2206.01113]

Anonymous

]]>Add a section for examples and (toposes that are nevertheless) non-examples.

Most of the substance of this, and some of the text, is from Leinster2010.

]]>Just to highlight (maybe to myself…) that this old entry fails to introduce or explain its subject and overlaps with *category of sheaves*.

I have now at least added the missing pointer

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

to the very first claim in the entry.

But the $n$Lab is looking for someone energetic about writing a readable page about Grothendieck toposes.

]]>Added a section “internal logic”, including a list of some principles that are not constructively provable but are valid in every Grothendieck topos.

]]>added Colin McLarty’s account on the origin of the concept in a new subsection *History*

I missed this discussion the first time around; I want to address the original topic, but it's drifted a bit, so I'll put my remarks at Grothendieck toposes in weak foundations.

]]>@David: Thanks, the “Cosmoi” paper is the reference that I was looking for!

]]>Yes, I meant the ’weaker’ arrows. As to lexness, hm….

]]>A (virtual) equipment has two kinds of morphism, the functors and the profunctors. As remarked at total category, totality is equivalent to saying that the colimit of $Id_C$ weighted by any $W:C^{op}\to Set$ exists, and this can be phrased as soon as you have functors and profunctors without needing the presheaf category. I’m not as sure about how to add lexness, though.

]]>Jonas

as far as I can tell, from Street’s “Cosmoi…” paper, a size structure on a (1-)category is an internal full subcategory, hence I guess a universe in the case of a topos. The 2-category $Cat(C)$, for $C$ cartesian closed, then gets a Yoneda structure. I guess the comment about $Fib(B)$ must be referring to a Yoneda structure. He then writes

Indeed, this structure arises from a fibrational cosmos (= “cosmos” in the sense of Street [28]).

where [28] is “Elementary cosmoi” in Springer LNM, which I’d have to dig out. I think you’re right about it being informal, but we can probably pin it down in this case.

@Mike

I guess you mean for arrows to be profunctors? Then instead of an adjoint to the Yoneda embedding, we want [something] relating to $Hom:C\times C^{op} \to Set$?

]]>It may be worth noting that unlike Yoneda structures, other contexts for formal category such as virtual equipments can make sense without any “locally large” categories. In particular, there is a virtual equipment whose objects are locally small and moderate (or small) categories. If “lex-totality” could be interpreted in that context, therefore, the size assumption would be automatic.

]]>Is “size structure” synonymous to “Yoneda structure”? Or is it meant to be more general and informal?

Regarding David’s question, I’m not sure. The main point seems to be to well-order a “moderate” covering set of objects in a way such that all its initial segments are small, and then to derive a contradiction from the assumption that none of the initial segments are generating. So in any case it’s by contradiction, I’m not sure at the moment if there is a sensible way to replace the well ordering by a quasi-well ordering.

One way to look at Street’s result that for me makes it less ‘scary’ is to observe that it’s parametric in an arbitrary strongly inaccessible cardinal. So in particular one can choose moderate=countable and small=finite. I’m trying to understand now what the result means in this case …

]]>Regarding my question to Todd:

In fact Street raises the idea himself (page 201 in internal numbering, third page of the pdf) in *Notions of topos*: he mentions ’size structures’ on bicategories, for instance the bicategory of fibrations over an elementary topos. He says that in the absence of AC in B, it’s unlikely all lex-total objects in Fib(B) will arise as an internal elementary topos with generators in Fib(B).

Oh, certainly, I don’t object to recording lex-totality elsewhere on the lab.

]]>Mike, if nothing else, the concept that lex-totality provides a viable ’notion of topos’ ought to be taken seriously and recorded somewhere in the nLab, IMO. (And obviously it’s more a ’notion of Grothendieck topos’ than just ’notion of (elementary) topos’.)

Other than that, I can understand your discomfort. Freyd has never been someone to shy away from a nonconstructive argument, it seems to me.

]]>@Todd - yes, that’s roughly what I was thinking of. If Vopenka held, then we cannot talk of the large discrete category $V$ inside $Cat$, so it would be better to have a proof that didn’t use the class of sets.

@Jonas #13 - is a well-quasi-ordering (i.e. a well-founded preorder) enough?

]]>I’ve never known quite what to make of this theorem, that with lex-totality and a moderate generating set you somehow magically also get a small generating set. The fact that it uses nonconstructive arguments like large well-orderings makes it seem to me more like an accident than something we ought to take seriously as a definition of topos.

]]>Okay, that’s true, the terminal category, or something equivalent to it. Touché. Wouldn’t that be the only case?

Yes, I think so. If $\mathcal{E}$ is a Grothendieck topos which is not equivalent to $1$, then it has an object $A$ which is not initial, and then for each set $I$, all the coproduct injections into the $I$-fold coproduct of $A$ are different (by disjointness, since the intersection of two coproduct injections is $A$ if they are equal, and $0$ if they are different). Therefore $\mathrm{mor}(\mathcal{G})$ has already the size of the universe.

This depends on classical logic, but so does Street’s characterization of Grothendieck toposes (the proof assumes the existence of a well-ordering on a possibly large set of objects).

]]>Oh, you’re right, Jonas. It’s the size of the class of isomorphism classes of objects, not the size of the class of objects, that counts. Of course. (I was thinking the class of objects, which under local smallness would be the same as the size of the class of morphisms, which normally I would consider a more meaningful way to speak of “size” of a category (not considering more refined notions due variously to Baez-Dolan, Leinster, and others). So that explains why I had ${|Mor(E)|}$.) Anyway, I’ll fix it – thanks.

Finally, I think the size condition in the characterization has to be ≤κ\leq\kappa and not =κ=\kappa (“at most the size of Set\mathrm{Set}”, not “the same size as Set\mathrm{Set}”), since otherwise we exclude the initial Grothendieck topos.

Ha ha ha ha! Okay, that’s true, the terminal category, or something equivalent to it. Touché. Wouldn’t that be the only case?

]]>I wanted to understand these things about “lex total” for a long time, maybe this is an occasion to look into it closer.

@Todd: why do you phrase the size condition as one on the class of morphisms? Street (in ‘Notions of topos’) states it as a condition on the objects, saying that there has to be a moderate collection of objects that can cover any other objects (via extremal epis). I think the condition that the category is locally small is implicit since otherwise the Yoneda embedding is not well defined. Under suitable conditions it might be possible to deduce from a moderate covering collection of objects that the collection of all objects is essentially small, and if the category is skeletal and locally small this probably induces that the collection of maps is moderate as well. But for this we have at least to assume that the category is skeletal or the size of isomorphism classes is somehow bounded. (With a normal set theoretic understanding it might seem pointless a bit to consider categories which are essentially moderate but not moderate in size, but if we want invariance under equivalence, then we have to allow that I think)

Finally, I think the size condition in the characterization has to be $\leq\kappa$ and not $=\kappa$ (“at most the size of $\mathrm{Set}$”, not “the same size as $\mathrm{Set}$”), since otherwise we exclude the initial Grothendieck topos.

]]>Thanks, Thomas – I’ve updated the link to Mark Weber’s paper at 2-topos.

]]>I think the paper is still available from here.

Bob Walters had a series of posts on toposes as ’glorified locales’ last year which give an interesting account of his views.

]]>