Skip to main content
added 152 characters in body
Source Link
Todd Trimble
  • 53.3k
  • 6
  • 205
  • 322

An intuitively attractive way of packaging it is that Grothendieck topologies on a small category $C$ are in bijective correspondence with those operators $j: \Omega \to \Omega$ (where $\Omega$ is the truth value object in the topos $Set^{C^{op}}$) that satisfy the conditions $1_\Omega \leq j$, $j j = j$, and $j \circ \wedge = \wedge \circ (j \times j)$, (where $\wedge: \Omega \times \Omega \to \Omega$ is internal intersection). This is discussed in Mac Lane and Moerdijk for instance. Such meet-preserving closure operators form an inf-lattice, in fact a sub-inf-lattice of $\hom(\Omega, \Omega)$. The fact that $\hom(\Omega, \Omega)$ is an inf-lattice is easy because it is assembled as a limit of inf-lattices $\hom(h_c, \Omega) \cong \Omega(c)$ (the poset of sieves = subfunctors of the representable $h_c$), where infs are ordinary set-theoretic intersections. If one writes out the details of this, one is led to the proof in Borceux's book.

Added later: I suppose it is well-known that inf-lattices are automatically sup-lattices: the sup of a family is the inf of the set of upper bounds.

An intuitively attractive way of packaging it is that Grothendieck topologies on a small category $C$ are in bijective correspondence with those operators $j: \Omega \to \Omega$ (where $\Omega$ is the truth value object in the topos $Set^{C^{op}}$) that satisfy the conditions $1_\Omega \leq j$, $j j = j$, and $j \circ \wedge = \wedge \circ (j \times j)$, (where $\wedge: \Omega \times \Omega \to \Omega$ is internal intersection). This is discussed in Mac Lane and Moerdijk for instance. Such meet-preserving closure operators form an inf-lattice, in fact a sub-inf-lattice of $\hom(\Omega, \Omega)$. The fact that $\hom(\Omega, \Omega)$ is an inf-lattice is easy because it is assembled as a limit of inf-lattices $\hom(h_c, \Omega) \cong \Omega(c)$ (the poset of sieves = subfunctors of the representable $h_c$), where infs are ordinary set-theoretic intersections. If one writes out the details of this, one is led to the proof in Borceux's book.

An intuitively attractive way of packaging it is that Grothendieck topologies on a small category $C$ are in bijective correspondence with those operators $j: \Omega \to \Omega$ (where $\Omega$ is the truth value object in the topos $Set^{C^{op}}$) that satisfy the conditions $1_\Omega \leq j$, $j j = j$, and $j \circ \wedge = \wedge \circ (j \times j)$, (where $\wedge: \Omega \times \Omega \to \Omega$ is internal intersection). This is discussed in Mac Lane and Moerdijk for instance. Such meet-preserving closure operators form an inf-lattice, in fact a sub-inf-lattice of $\hom(\Omega, \Omega)$. The fact that $\hom(\Omega, \Omega)$ is an inf-lattice is easy because it is assembled as a limit of inf-lattices $\hom(h_c, \Omega) \cong \Omega(c)$ (the poset of sieves = subfunctors of the representable $h_c$), where infs are ordinary set-theoretic intersections. If one writes out the details of this, one is led to the proof in Borceux's book.

Added later: I suppose it is well-known that inf-lattices are automatically sup-lattices: the sup of a family is the inf of the set of upper bounds.

Source Link
Todd Trimble
  • 53.3k
  • 6
  • 205
  • 322

An intuitively attractive way of packaging it is that Grothendieck topologies on a small category $C$ are in bijective correspondence with those operators $j: \Omega \to \Omega$ (where $\Omega$ is the truth value object in the topos $Set^{C^{op}}$) that satisfy the conditions $1_\Omega \leq j$, $j j = j$, and $j \circ \wedge = \wedge \circ (j \times j)$, (where $\wedge: \Omega \times \Omega \to \Omega$ is internal intersection). This is discussed in Mac Lane and Moerdijk for instance. Such meet-preserving closure operators form an inf-lattice, in fact a sub-inf-lattice of $\hom(\Omega, \Omega)$. The fact that $\hom(\Omega, \Omega)$ is an inf-lattice is easy because it is assembled as a limit of inf-lattices $\hom(h_c, \Omega) \cong \Omega(c)$ (the poset of sieves = subfunctors of the representable $h_c$), where infs are ordinary set-theoretic intersections. If one writes out the details of this, one is led to the proof in Borceux's book.