Skip to main content
11 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Jun 15, 2020 at 1:22 answer added Todd Trimble timeline score: 6
May 27, 2020 at 22:25 answer added Tim Campion timeline score: 8
May 25, 2020 at 14:32 history edited David White CC BY-SA 4.0
edited body
May 25, 2020 at 13:13 history became hot network question
May 25, 2020 at 12:31 comment added Dylan Wilson FWIW this is no longer true in the $\infty$-categorical setting, where "finite" has a slightly different meaning, and taking retracts is no longer a finite colimit. (It fails already when $C$ is a point, by the Wall finiteness obstruction.)
May 25, 2020 at 11:36 comment added Ivan Di Liberti Maybe a relevant motivational analogy is that compact objects in the poset $2^X$ are precisely finite subsets of $X$.
May 25, 2020 at 6:28 answer added Aurélien Djament timeline score: 17
May 25, 2020 at 6:28 comment added William Balderrama @DmitriPavlov Ah, so they are. For some reason I had in mind the sequential colimit along the given idempotent morphism as the way of splitting it.
May 25, 2020 at 6:24 comment added Dmitri Pavlov @WilliamBalderrama: Retracts are colimits over a category with a single object and a single nonidentity morphism, which is idempotent.
May 25, 2020 at 6:17 comment added William Balderrama If you don't want to assume that X is idempotent-complete, then I think you can get a counterexample by looking at retracts of representables that don't exist in your base category, since these will be compact and I don't think you can write them as finite colimits of representables in general. But a particular example with a proof that it isn't a finite colimit of representables isn't coming to me right now.
May 25, 2020 at 5:10 history asked John Baez CC BY-SA 4.0