Timeline for Is the subobject functor really a presheaf?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 3, 2010 at 10:35 | comment | added | Peter Arndt | Whoa, I should have stopped to think before writing that answer - thanks! (I have hardly seen any non-Grothendieck toposes, hence my careless naivity :-) | |
| Sep 3, 2010 at 10:24 | history | edited | Peter Arndt | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
corrected two blunders
|
| Sep 3, 2010 at 7:20 | comment | added | Mike Shulman | Also, I don't see why this lets you conclude anything about full subcategories of toposes, since a morphism could in theory be monic in such a subcategory without being monic in the topos itself. | |
| Sep 3, 2010 at 7:17 | comment | added | Mike Shulman | IIRC Mac Lane & Moerdijk (along with most other topos theorists) do not include local smallness in the definition of an elementary topos, so it is not necessarily true that they are locally small either (in fact an elementary topos is locally small iff it is well-powered, since the collection of morphisms A→B can be identified with a subcollection of subobjects of A×B). | |
| Jul 28, 2010 at 11:05 | vote | accept | fosco | ||
| Jul 28, 2010 at 10:55 | history | answered | Peter Arndt | CC BY-SA 2.5 |