11
$\begingroup$

Let $\mathcal{E}$ be a topos, and let $\top\colon1\to\Omega$ be its subobject classifier. We refer to global elements $P\colon 1\to\Omega$ as propositions; they form a poset, denoted $(|\Omega|,\leq)$. There are also connectives $\Omega^2\to\Omega$, such as $\Rightarrow,\wedge,\vee$.

A Lawvere-Tierney topology on $\mathcal{E}$, also known as a local operator or a modality, is a morphism $j\colon\Omega\to\Omega$ such that $P\leq j(P)$, $jj(P)= j(P)$, and $j(P\wedge Q)=j(P)\wedge j(Q)$ for all $P,Q\in|\Omega|$.

For any proposition $\phi\in|\Omega|$, there are three well-known modalities that one can associate to $\phi$:

  1. The open modality for $\phi$, denoted $o_\phi\colon\Omega\to\Omega$, given by the formula $o_\phi(P):=(\phi\Rightarrow P)$.
  2. The closed modality for $\phi$, denoted $c_\phi\colon\Omega\to\Omega$, given by the formula $c_\phi(P):=(\phi\vee P)$.
  3. The quasi-closed modality for $\phi$, denoted $q_\phi\colon\Omega\to\Omega$, given by the formula $q_\phi(P):=((P\Rightarrow\phi)\Rightarrow\phi)$.

Let's call the above "propositional" modalities, for want of a better term. Let's also include the "union" of two propositional modalities as propositional (the union of $j_1$ and $j_2$ is given by $(j_1\wedge j_2)(-)$), as well as various intersections that can be defined internally. For example, it is easy to check that $(j_1\circ j_2)$ is again a modality (called the intersection of $j_1$ and $j_2$) if either $j_1$ is open or $j_2$ is closed. [Thanks to Simon Henry for reminding me of intersections.]

I certainly wouldn't expect that all modalities are propositional in the above sense.

Question: Can you supply an example of a non-propositional modality on a topos $\mathcal{E}$?

Thanks!

$\endgroup$
4
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ The intersection of an "open" and a "closed" modality ? $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 28, 2018 at 16:02
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Just to add another example to the already given answers: Let $X$ be a scheme. Define $\nabla P$ to say "the set $\mathcal{O}_X$ is separated with respect to the modality $(P \Rightarrow \cdot)$", i.e. "$\forall f : \mathcal{O}_X. (P\Rightarrow f = 0) \Rightarrow f = 0$" (expressed in the internal language). Then $\nabla$ is a local operator which isn't propositional, at least not obviously so. (It has geometric meaning: Whereas $\neg\neg P$ means "$P$ holds on a dense open subset", $\nabla P$ means "$P$ holds on a schematically-dense open subset".) $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 29, 2018 at 9:37
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Every subspace $Y\subseteq X$ of a topological space induces a Lawvere-Tierney topology on the sheaf topos $\mathrm{Sh}(X)$. Few of these are propositional. Probably $\mathbb{Q} \subseteq \mathbb{R}$, for instance, is not propositional. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 30, 2018 at 4:37
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ But one should also notes that lots of them can be described by combining propositional modalities: In fact any sublocales of a locales is an intersection of a familly of sublocales of the form $U \cup F$ with $F$ a closed sublocales and $U$ and open sublocales (respectively corresponding to open and closed modalities). This applies in particular to the subtopos corresponding to subspaces of topological spaces (but one generally need to consider an infinite intersection). For regular spaces, intersection of open subspaces are in fact enough. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 30, 2018 at 9:49

3 Answers 3

9
$\begingroup$

An answer similar to that of Simon Henry. Take (left) $M$-sets for a monoid $M$: the terminal is a singleton set, so has only two subobjects, and the only nontrivial propositional in your sense modality you can get is double negation. However there can be other modalities: $\Omega$ can be taken to be the Heyting algebra of left ideals of $M$, i. e. $M$-subsets $\mathfrak a\subseteq M$ of $M$ with the action on itself by left multiplication. This $\Omega$ is an $M$-set via $$ m\mathfrak a=\{m'\in M\mid m'm\in\mathfrak a\} $$ and it is clearly an $M$-equivariant Heyting algebra, i. e. $M$ acts on it via Heyting algebra endomorphisms. Thus for example analogs of all kinds of propositional modalities that you list can be realized in it, e. g. for an ideal $\mathfrak a\in\Omega$ we have modalities $\mathfrak a\cup-$, $\mathfrak a\Rightarrow -$, $(-\Rightarrow\mathfrak a)\Rightarrow\mathfrak a$ which in general cannot be obtained from any subobjects of the terminal, i. e. they are essentially "$M$-propositional" rather than "$1$-propositional".

Later - in a comment below Simon revealed a misconception of mine: the actual examples I proposed were actually wrong. While still not understanding well what goes on, but inspired by his further comment, I decided to add some (hopefully) valid examples, with the aid of "Remarks on quintessential and persistent localizations" by Johnstone (TAC 2 (1996) pp. 90–99). It is shown there that for $M$-sets, those local operators $j$ on $\Omega$ for which the associated sheaf functor is not only left but also right adjoint to the inclusion of $j$-sheaves, are in one-to-one correspondence with central idempotents of $M$.

Explicitly, if $e$ is a central idempotent of $M$ then $\mathfrak a\mapsto e\mathfrak a$ is a local operator, with sheaves those $M$-sets on which $e$ acts by identity, the associated sheaf of an $M$-set $X$ being $eX$.

$\endgroup$
9
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I don't think that works: I agree that the topos of $M$-sets will have in general lots of non trivial local operator, but the construction the mentioned are not examples: if you pick a non $M$-invariant element of $\Omega$, then the modality that you will defined will not be $M$-invariant as maps from $\Omega \rightarrow \Omega$, hence they will not even be morphisms in the topos. And the only $M$-invariant of $\Omega$ are true and false. So you will never a get a non propositional local operator this way. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 29, 2018 at 9:49
  • $\begingroup$ @SimonHenry Many thanks for pointing this out! I will think how to repair my answer $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 29, 2018 at 16:11
  • $\begingroup$ I thought that looking at the subtopos of objects on which $M$ acts by isomorphisms would give an interesting local operator. But unless I'm mistaken it seems it is the same as the double negation topology.... Maybe one can look at the subcategory of objects where only some collection $S \subset M$ acts by isomorphisms to get a different local operator ? $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 29, 2018 at 16:45
  • $\begingroup$ @SimonHenry Yes I agree with what you say. I will try to derive an explicit $j$ from these. Forcing $S$ to act by isomorphisms is the Grothendieck topology with each principal ideal for elements from $S$ covers $M$. In general, there is a formula (I think, by Joyal) how to produce a $j$-operator in such cases. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 29, 2018 at 18:02
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes I think this is right. $\endgroup$ Commented May 2, 2018 at 6:40
12
$\begingroup$

Here are examples that are really not propositional in the sense that they are not obtained by combining propositional modalities.

Take a "non-commutative torus" I.e Takes the circle $S^1$ and makes $\mathbb{Z} $ acts on it by rotation by an angle not commensurable with $\pi$. And consider the topos of $\mathbb{Z}$-equivariant sheaves over the circle.

In this topos the subobject classifier has no global section other than true and false : indeed a subterminal object is an invariant open subsets of $S^1$, and those does not exists.

So the only non trivial modality that you will get with your construction is the double negation topology.

But any invariant sublocale of $S^1$ would give you a local operator on the topos.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

In a comment exchange, another class of easily describable examples emerged. Let $C$ be a small category, and consider the presheaf topos $\mathbf{Set}^{C^{\mathrm{op}}}$. In there, the subobject classifier $\Omega$ is the presheaf which to an object $c$ of $C$ assigns the poset of all sieves for $c$, i.~e. subsets $R\subseteq|C/c|$ which satisfy $(\gamma:c'\to c)\in R\ \Rightarrow\ \forall\ \gamma':c''\to c'\ (\gamma\gamma':c''\to c)\in R$.

Now any subset $S\subseteq|C|$ of the set of objects of $C$ defines a local operator $j_S:\Omega\to\Omega$ given by $$ j_S(R)=\{\gamma:c'\to c\mid\forall\ s\in S\ \forall\ \sigma:s\to c'\ (\gamma\sigma:s\to c)\in R\}. $$ The corresponding subtopos is the topos of presheaves on the full subcategory of $C$ with $S$ as the set of objects.

Clearly in general there are many such $j_S$ which do not correspond to any subterminals: for example, if $\hom(c,c')$ is nonempty for all objects $c$, $c'$, then there are no notrivial subterminals at all, but there might clearly be lots of full subcategories giving rise to various different local operators.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .