Timeline for On the universal property of the lexicographic order, again
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 7 at 23:44 | answer | added | Brendan Murphy | timeline score: 6 | |
| May 26, 2017 at 19:14 | comment | added | fosco | I'm almost sure that $P\times_\text{lex}Q$ can't be a category of elements. So the question is even more open :) | |
| May 26, 2017 at 8:56 | comment | added | fosco | What I need is instead soomething that says "$(p,q)\le (p',q')$ is $p\lneq p'$ (and no condition on $q$) or $p=p'$ and $q\le q'$" | |
| May 26, 2017 at 8:55 | comment | added | fosco | Even in its most lax formulation, such a category of elements doesn't seem to work: if you consider $c_Q : P \to Cat$ constant, then its category of elements has objects $P\times Q$ (correct) but morphisms $(p,q)\le (p',q')$ those $p\le p'$ such that there is also $q\le q'$. | |
| May 26, 2017 at 5:08 | comment | added | David Roberts♦ | Random idea: take the constant diagram P-->Cat on Q, and do the Grothendieck construction? | |
| May 25, 2017 at 22:49 | history | asked | fosco | CC BY-SA 3.0 |