Timeline for completion of category is idempotent
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 4, 2010 at 12:13 | history | edited | Pete L. Clark | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
corrected spelling, included capitalization
|
| Jan 4, 2010 at 11:37 | answer | added | G. Rodrigues | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jan 4, 2010 at 0:00 | answer | added | Reid Barton | timeline score: 6 | |
| Jan 3, 2010 at 22:38 | vote | accept | Martin Brandenburg | ||
| Jan 3, 2010 at 22:36 | history | edited | Martin Brandenburg | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 274 characters in body
|
| Jan 3, 2010 at 16:47 | answer | added | David E Speyer | timeline score: 8 | |
| Jan 3, 2010 at 16:42 | history | edited | Martin Brandenburg | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 581 characters in body; edited body
|
| Jan 3, 2010 at 16:32 | history | edited | Martin Brandenburg | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
deleted 44 characters in body; added 387 characters in body
|
| Jan 3, 2010 at 11:49 | comment | added | Harry Gindi | I'll let someone else answer it then, but I'm pretty sure that the nLab page shows that your objection is irrelevant. | |
| Jan 3, 2010 at 11:38 | comment | added | Martin Brandenburg | you miss the dependancy between the diagrams. in the notation of my post, the diagram $(y_{ij})_j$ depends on $i$. | |
| Jan 3, 2010 at 11:35 | comment | added | Harry Gindi | Every object of A bar is the limit of a small diagram D in A, and every object of A double bar is the limit of a small diagram D' in A bar. However, A and A bar are subcategories of the complete category X, so we express D and D' as diagrams in X. Then take the product diagram. This is at the very bottom of the nLab page. Unless I'm terribly mistaken, I believe this should answer your question, but I'm not confident enough to post it as an answer. | |
| Jan 3, 2010 at 11:18 | comment | added | Martin Brandenburg | as I said, in order to interchange limits, we have to start with a functor which has two parameters. in the nlab page, there is no discussion going beyond that. the problem is that in the situation above, there is no obvious way to make $y_{ij}$ functorial in both $i$ and $j$. | |
| Jan 3, 2010 at 11:12 | comment | added | Harry Gindi | Please read the page carefully. What you're talking about is constructed explicitly! | |
| Jan 3, 2010 at 11:00 | comment | added | Martin Brandenburg | I know this. please read my question carefully! | |
| Jan 3, 2010 at 10:56 | comment | added | Harry Gindi | ncatlab.org/nlab/show/limit . Please read the whole page. I found at least the answer to your "let's try it", but in fact, I believe the total answer is there. | |
| Jan 3, 2010 at 10:34 | history | asked | Martin Brandenburg | CC BY-SA 2.5 |