9
$\begingroup$

This question is mostly about a reference request. Let $\mathcal{E}$ be a Grothendieck topos. I am looking for a reference of the following two facts. I am aware that $(2) \Rightarrow (1)$ by Gabriel-Popescu. I was sure I had seen $(1)$ in Bourceux's encyclopedia, but I can't find it anymore.

  1. The category of internal abelian group objects $\mathsf{Ab}(\mathcal{E})$ is a Grothendieck category.
  2. Call $\mathsf{Set}[\mathsf{Ab}]$ the classifying topos of abelian groups, and let $\mathcal{E} \simeq \mathsf{Sh}(C,J)$. Then $$\mathsf{Ab}(\mathcal{E}) \simeq \mathsf{Cocontlex(\mathsf{Set}[\mathsf{Ab}], \mathcal{E})} \simeq \mathsf{lex}(\mathsf{Ab}_\omega,\mathcal{E}) \simeq \mathsf{lex}(\mathsf{Ab}_\omega,\mathsf{Sh}(C,J)) \simeq \mathsf{Sh}(C,\mathsf{Ab}).$$
$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I don't understand which part of (2) is non-trivial ? The equivalence between the first and the last is pretty obvious if you just write what it means to be an abelian group in Sh(C,J) vs a sheaf of abelian group (it works for any algebraic theory) $\endgroup$ – Simon Henry Oct 24 at 12:42
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @SimonHenry, I agree with you. I was asking because I might want to cite it. $\endgroup$ – Ivan Di Liberti Oct 24 at 12:44
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Like @SimonHenry says, the equivalence between the first and last of (2) holds for any algebraic theory and, if I am not mistaken, appears as Proposition 6.3.1 in SGA 4 (although of course they do not use the terminology "algebraic theory"). But maybe you are looking for a reference mentioning the whole chain of equivalences? For what concerns (1), again I may be mistaken but I think it is (a special case of) Proposition 6.7 of SGA 4. $\endgroup$ – Damiano Mazza Oct 25 at 21:01
9
$\begingroup$

Johnstone's "Topos theory" has a chapter on cohomology; your (1) is the first result the author proves. I don't remember about (2), but maybe it's also there?

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thanks. $(1)$ is Thm. 8.11 in Topos Theory. (2) does not seems to be there. $\endgroup$ – Ivan Di Liberti Oct 24 at 12:22

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.