Search Results
Search type | Search syntax |
---|---|
Tags | [tag] |
Exact | "words here" |
Author |
user:1234 user:me (yours) |
Score |
score:3 (3+) score:0 (none) |
Answers |
answers:3 (3+) answers:0 (none) isaccepted:yes hasaccepted:no inquestion:1234 |
Views | views:250 |
Code | code:"if (foo != bar)" |
Sections |
title:apples body:"apples oranges" |
URL | url:"*.example.com" |
Saves | in:saves |
Status |
closed:yes duplicate:no migrated:no wiki:no |
Types |
is:question is:answer |
Exclude |
-[tag] -apples |
For more details on advanced search visit our help page |
10
votes
Grothendieck Topologies versus Pretopologies
A Grothendieck topology by definition consists of sieves – what Johnstone calls a sifted coverage – whereas a Grothendieck pretopology in any non-trivial case will contain a non-sieve. (Recall that $\ …
8
votes
Accepted
Subsheaves of Spec K, K a field
There is no hope for this in any subcanonical topology coarser than the fppf topology, or more generally, any subcanonical topology in which morphisms $\operatorname{Spec} C \to \operatorname{Spec} K$ …
7
votes
Accepted
Subobject classifier for sheaves on large sites with WISC
To answer your question directly, WISC does not imply the existence of subobject classifiers.
Notice that when there are only trivial covers, WISC is trivially satisfied, so it suffices to find a cate …
2
votes
Are the two definitions of fppf topology on the category of schemes the same?
Let me expand on my comments.
Assuming a morphism is flat and locally of finite presentation, it is surjective if and only if it is a universally effective epimorphism.
A morphism $f : X \to Y$ of s …
1
vote
Accepted
Is there a name for this "weak compatibility" between Grothendieck (pre)topologies?
I would just say that the inclusion preserves covering families (in the naïve sense). You don't need Grothendieck pretopologies to make sense of this – just plain coverages (in the sense of Johnstone; …