Timeline for Is an objectwise subframe a sub-inf-lattice in a topos?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 23, 2016 at 14:43 | comment | added | Arrow | Sorry for bugging you again. If you have time, could you take a look at this question? | |
| Oct 23, 2016 at 14:25 | comment | added | Arrow | I do mean finite conjunctions. I think I'll start calling these things sub-posets with meets. Thanks again for the great answer. | |
| Oct 23, 2016 at 14:22 | comment | added | Simon Henry | @Arrow : if by "inf lattice" you mean with finite conjunctions the yes. For infinite conjunctions then No, but the converse is true. | |
| Oct 20, 2016 at 18:54 | comment | added | Arrow | Thank you for the very complete and interesting answer! Forgive me but much of it is beyond me for now (though I definitely intend to study this material and the entirety of your answer soon!); for now I would like to make sure I understand correctly - with the identification you mention in your first point, it is true that a subobject of $\Omega$ which is object-wise a sub-inf-lattice is internally a sub-inf-lattice basically because the internal logic of a topos does not see conjunctions locally? | |
| Oct 20, 2016 at 14:14 | vote | accept | Arrow | ||
| Oct 19, 2016 at 11:30 | history | answered | Simon Henry | CC BY-SA 3.0 |