Timeline for Limits in category theory and analysis
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
21 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 10 at 20:02 | answer | added | Alexander Kurz | timeline score: 0 | |
| Sep 30, 2020 at 11:11 | answer | added | Jochen Wengenroth | timeline score: 3 | |
| Dec 24, 2015 at 18:10 | history | edited | user9072 |
edited tags
|
|
| Jan 29, 2013 at 14:44 | history | edited | Martin Brandenburg | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 142 characters in body; edited title
|
| Jan 29, 2013 at 9:35 | vote | accept | Martin Brandenburg | ||
| Jan 29, 2013 at 8:19 | comment | added | Rafael Mrden | @Martin Brandenburg: Sure! | |
| Jan 29, 2013 at 8:18 | answer | added | Rafael Mrden | timeline score: 32 | |
| Jan 29, 2013 at 0:05 | comment | added | Martin Brandenburg | @rafaelm: Can you add this as an answer, please? | |
| Jan 28, 2013 at 20:30 | comment | added | Rafael Mrden | I have asked this qouestion on math.stackexchange last year, and got sasisfactory answer, at least for me :) ( math.stackexchange.com/questions/60590/… ) | |
| Feb 23, 2012 at 17:18 | comment | added | Buschi Sergio | @MArtin: Sorry for my ENglish (and mine no too linear mind maybe). From a topological space $X$ you get the ordered category $C(X)$ of its opens, then (considerind tha analysis definition of limit) rise the question: "How detect (find) points of $X$ in terms of the category $C(X)$?". Points of $X$ come from the set sub-structure that is under (and out) $C(X)$. In locales or (more generally) a topos you have the concept of "points". (Is only a starting idea) | |
| Feb 23, 2012 at 14:52 | answer | added | Jeff Strom | timeline score: 1 | |
| Feb 23, 2012 at 14:29 | comment | added | Martin Brandenburg | @Buschi: I don't understand what you're saying. | |
| Feb 23, 2012 at 12:22 | comment | added | Buschi Sergio | I think that obstacle is that give a topology viewed as a category objects are open sets, and points (concept inherent to analysis limit concept) isn't descrivible in simple categorical way (a ultrafilter is topology is T1). THen need enrich the base, and considering the limits on a locales relative to its "point", or more generally in a topos on Set (where a point is a geometric morphism from Set). But this requires a more accurate exploration... | |
| Dec 29, 2009 at 22:47 | answer | added | Paul Taylor | timeline score: 7 | |
| Dec 28, 2009 at 17:37 | comment | added | B. Bischof | While not the answer to your question you might be interested in considering the natural ordering of the L^p spaces on measurable eu sets, now take the direct limit. Notice that depending on the category in which you take the spaces to be objects, you may, or may not get L^/infty. I found this excercise very amusing when I first considered it. | |
| Dec 28, 2009 at 16:25 | answer | added | Reid Barton | timeline score: 19 | |
| Dec 28, 2009 at 15:52 | answer | added | Håkon Gylterud | timeline score: 15 | |
| Dec 28, 2009 at 14:47 | comment | added | Martin Brandenburg | I'm not really satisfied with the answers. if we consider the partial order of open subsets of X, a diagram in this category has nothing to do with a net/sequence. | |
| Dec 28, 2009 at 13:39 | comment | added | Harry Gindi | Twice, in fact. | |
| Dec 28, 2009 at 12:55 | comment | added | Kevin H. Lin | This was previously addressed here: mathoverflow.net/questions/6554/terminology-in-category-theory | |
| Dec 28, 2009 at 12:50 | history | asked | Martin Brandenburg | CC BY-SA 2.5 |