Timeline for Is there a name for this "weak compatibility" between Grothendieck (pre)topologies?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 8, 2012 at 19:18 | vote | accept | Manny Reyes | ||
| Sep 8, 2012 at 2:15 | comment | added | Zhen Lin | I would also say it "preserves covering families" – after all, if $\mathcal{D}$ is equipped with a saturated coverage then it is equivalent to "preserves covering families in the naïve sense". The former is what Johnstone means by "cover-preserving" in the Elephant, so it is not without precedent. | |
| Sep 7, 2012 at 19:59 | comment | added | Manny Reyes | Thanks for your nice, informative answer. Your better property, using subordinate covering families, seems useful. Can you think of a concise way to state it, similar to the inclusion preserving covering families? | |
| Sep 6, 2012 at 17:53 | history | edited | Zhen Lin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 49 characters in body
|
| Sep 6, 2012 at 17:36 | history | answered | Zhen Lin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |