Skip to main content
13 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Feb 6, 2023 at 2:17 vote accept LOCOAS
Feb 5, 2023 at 10:33 answer added Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine timeline score: 6
Feb 5, 2023 at 9:42 answer added LOCOAS timeline score: 1
Jan 27, 2023 at 15:04 comment added Zhen Lin You are not wrong in the narrow sense but at the same time I think it is clear to you what the authors actually meant, so you are wrong to make a fuss of it.
Jan 26, 2023 at 1:22 comment added LOCOAS @abx What you are saying is completely correct. We can interpret all claims in the proper sense. However, I am afraid that the above assertion about the smallness of the pair may produces errors in various places. So I would like to know if I am wrong in the above discussion.
Jan 25, 2023 at 14:36 comment added abx In my view this is a completely artificial problem. We all know very well what is a small category, don't we?
Jan 25, 2023 at 12:15 comment added LOCOAS @LSpice My source is exactly the part pointed out by abx.
Jan 25, 2023 at 12:12 comment added LOCOAS @abx If that were the case, we would have to treat a category as an ordered pair of a set of morohisms, compositions, and so on. In that case, we end up with the same problem.
Jan 25, 2023 at 12:08 comment added LOCOAS @Zhen Lin In page 2 of SGA 4 (see abx's link above), he says 'On dit qu’un ensemble est U-petit (ou, quand aucune confusion n’en résulte, petit) s’il est isomorphe à un élément de U.'
Jan 25, 2023 at 10:39 comment added Zhen Lin It has been a long time since I looked at SGA 4 but do they actually define smallness as you say...? My impression was that they define a notion that is not bijection-invariant.
Jan 25, 2023 at 5:06 comment added abx In the new edition of SGA 4, there is an editor's footnote on p. 2: "A category is viewed as a set of arrows".
Jan 25, 2023 at 4:33 comment added LSpice Could you refer specifically to where this definition occurs?
Jan 25, 2023 at 3:01 history asked LOCOAS CC BY-SA 4.0