Timeline for In what sense are fields an algebraic theory?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 18, 2009 at 2:37 | history | edited | SixWingedSeraph | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
Added a paragraph about the category of fields.
|
| Oct 29, 2009 at 3:45 | comment | added | Reid Barton | Yes, I've always thought that locally presentable and accesible categories (see Adamek and Rosicky's book of the same name) have really bad PR--sounds like the most boring and technical thing in the world but actually the theory is quite beautiful and illuminating. | |
| Oct 29, 2009 at 3:37 | comment | added | Mike Shulman | It also follows from this answer that the category of fields is accessible, which can be regarded as a sort of "algebraicity". | |
| Oct 29, 2009 at 3:14 | comment | added | Reid Barton | Categories of models of essentially algebraic theories are categories of models of finite limit sketches, and thus locally presentable, which the category of fields of a given characterstic is not (for instance it lacks a terminal object or coproducts). | |
| Oct 29, 2009 at 3:01 | comment | added | Charles Rezk | Is it possible that the category of field of fixed characteristic p are essentially algebraic? | |
| Oct 29, 2009 at 2:47 | history | answered | SixWingedSeraph | CC BY-SA 2.5 |