Skip to main content
9 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Nov 28, 2010 at 14:52 comment added Pete L. Clark @David: Thanks for the link; it looks interesting. (I am not surprised that the orientation question has been asked before...)
Nov 28, 2010 at 13:34 comment added David Corfield Orientation of categories has cropped up at the n-Category Cafe, e.g., golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2009/06/kan_lifts.html#c024719, golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2009/05/…, and golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2008/12/….
Nov 28, 2010 at 5:42 history made wiki Post Made Community Wiki by S. Carnahan
Nov 28, 2010 at 0:28 comment added Qiaochu Yuan @Martin: at least for the category of affine schemes I think the answer is "it behaves more like Set than the opposite category."
Nov 27, 2010 at 22:58 comment added Martin Brandenburg "Why do most categories come with a "natural orientation"" is a very nice interpretation of the question!
Nov 27, 2010 at 20:35 comment added Bruno Stonek @Pete: agreed. I would like to especially recommend this paper: maths.gla.ac.uk/~tl/categories/yoneda.ps . I quote the last page: "two objects look the same if and only if they look the same from all viewpoints". This is formally explored in that paper, and in full generality, I believe.
Nov 27, 2010 at 19:36 comment added Brian Thanks for your answer. This is exactly the question I am asking: when we write $X = \mathrm{Spec} A$, already implicitly, we are viewing $A$ as the ring of functions from $X$ to $\mathrm{Spec} K[x]$.
Nov 27, 2010 at 19:31 comment added Pete L. Clark P.S.: If one is going to mention categories at all, I suppose "Yoneda Lemma" should occur in the answer somewhere. But there are others who enjoy talking about this material more than I...
Nov 27, 2010 at 19:29 history answered Pete L. Clark CC BY-SA 2.5