Timeline for The single-plus construction is not the left adjoint of the inclusion of separated presheaves?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 15, 2020 at 7:27 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Jun 25, 2017 at 17:32 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | To save others the trouble of checking: currently the nLab agrees. | |
| Dec 15, 2010 at 7:20 | answer | added | Angelo | timeline score: 11 | |
| Dec 15, 2010 at 6:31 | vote | accept | Harry Gindi | ||
| Dec 15, 2010 at 6:31 | history | edited | Harry Gindi | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 3 characters in body
|
| Dec 15, 2010 at 6:30 | answer | added | Kevin Ventullo | timeline score: 19 | |
| Dec 15, 2010 at 6:24 | comment | added | Harry Gindi | Actually, yeah, you're completely right. I just found the result you're talking about in Gabriel-Zisman, so if you want to post that as an answer, I will be happy to accept it. | |
| Dec 15, 2010 at 6:20 | comment | added | Harry Gindi | @Kevin: Yes, I think so too. I just wanted to make sure, since the nLab appears to disagree with us on this point. | |
| Dec 15, 2010 at 6:19 | history | edited | Harry Gindi | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 984 characters in body
|
| Dec 15, 2010 at 6:04 | comment | added | Kevin Ventullo | I think for $(-)^+$ to be left-adjoint to $\iota$, we would need $(-)^+\circ\iota = id.$ | |
| Dec 15, 2010 at 5:45 | history | asked | Harry Gindi | CC BY-SA 2.5 |