Skip to main content

Timeline for Concise definition of subobjects

Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0

10 events
when toggle format what by license comment
May 23, 2021 at 0:31 comment added Todd Trimble @LSpice Thanks; fixed.
May 23, 2021 at 0:31 history edited Todd Trimble CC BY-SA 4.0
edit in response to LSpice's comment
Oct 16, 2014 at 9:23 comment added მამუკა ჯიბლაძე In fact one might also send both Sub (in the sense of OP) and $hom(-,\Omega)$ to categories (taking $\Omega$ to be an internal poset) and then require these two 2-functors to be equivalent (rather than isomorphic).
Oct 13, 2014 at 19:36 vote accept Martin Brandenburg
Oct 12, 2014 at 0:09 comment added Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine I think the well-poweredness is beside the point: the main thing is that the groupoid core of the the category of subobjects is essentially discrete, and so we are quotienting by unique isomorphisms, which is generally well-behaved.
Oct 11, 2014 at 22:08 comment added Todd Trimble (I edited just as you were writing your last comment.) Yes, as I say, you're right -- it's not necessary. But it doesn't seem to be a big deal, as noted already by Anton in a comment above.
Oct 11, 2014 at 22:05 comment added Martin Brandenburg (Small error: The category of subobjects is not ess. discrete ...)
Oct 11, 2014 at 22:04 history edited Todd Trimble CC BY-SA 3.0
edited body
Oct 11, 2014 at 22:03 comment added Martin Brandenburg Yes, I know all this, so here are my cons: 1) Many diagrams/categories/limits are actually not small, but only essentially small. So I would define a well-powered category to be one where $\mathrm{Sub}(A)$ is essentially small for every object $A$. (Or even better, define smallness in a better non-set-theoretic way so that this becomes essentially smallness). 2) This should be seen as a functor to categories, or at least, preorders (not partial orders).
Oct 11, 2014 at 21:58 history answered Todd Trimble CC BY-SA 3.0