Timeline for Are there non-categorical notions in topos theory?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Apr 4, 2013 at 16:03 | history | edited | Zhen Lin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
minor clarification
|
Apr 4, 2013 at 15:32 | comment | added | David Carchedi | (sorry, $\mathcal{T}\left(E,\mathcal{O}\right)$ is equivalent to $\phi\left(E\right)$, of course). | |
Apr 4, 2013 at 15:28 | vote | accept | David Carchedi | ||
Apr 4, 2013 at 15:28 | comment | added | David Carchedi | I.e. the functor $$\mathcal{T} \to \mathbf{Cat}$$ sending $E$ to $$Nat\left(\mathbf{FinSet}^{op},\mathcal{T}\left(1,E\right)\right)$$ is corepresentable by an object $\mathcal{O}$ such that for each $E$ in $\mathcal{T}$, $\mathcal{T}\left(\mathcal{O},E\right)$ is equivalent to $\phi\left(E\right)$. Nice! | |
Apr 4, 2013 at 11:54 | comment | added | Zhen Lin | @Simon I have added a paragraph to address your comments. The answer is yes. | |
Apr 4, 2013 at 11:53 | history | edited | Zhen Lin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 583 characters in body
|
Apr 4, 2013 at 9:48 | comment | added | Simon Henry | In Ab, the object $\mathbb{Z}$ can be characterized in purely categorical term : for example it is the only projective object $Z$ such that any other projective can be written as a coproduct of a familly of copies of $Z$. I don't know if $Set[\mathbb{O}]$ can be characterized similarly in a purely categorical way. (or equivalently, does every self-equivalence of the 2-category of toposes preserve $Set[\mathbb{O}]$ up to equivalence). This question is actually equivalent to the the initial questions. | |
Apr 4, 2013 at 8:09 | comment | added | Zhen Lin | Yes, but how is this any different from needing to know which object is $\mathbb{Z}$ in $\textbf{Ab}$ in order to recover the underlying set of an abelian group? | |
Apr 4, 2013 at 8:01 | comment | added | Simon Henry | I mean't you need to assume that you know which object of $\mathcal{T}$ is equivalent to $Set[\mathbb{O}]$. I don't think there is an actual 'universal property' defining him... | |
Apr 4, 2013 at 7:45 | comment | added | Simon Henry | Yes but you need to know $\phi(E)$ in order to compute $Geom(\phi(E),Set[\mathbb{O}])$, no ? | |
Apr 4, 2013 at 7:22 | history | answered | Zhen Lin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |