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 | |
Results tagged with accessible-categories
Search options answers only
not deleted
user 2273
3
votes
Accepted
Equivalence of the two definitions of k-compactness/k-presentability
The definitions are equivalent as stands; no extra conditions (eg majorants for infinite sets of factorisations) are needed. This is essentially because colimits in $\mathbf{Sets}$ are computed finit …
- 21.3k
7
votes
Adjusting the definition of a well-powered category to category theory with universes: size ...
One simple way is to read the traditional definitions (à la Grothendieck, etc) but replacing existence conditions with chosen structure:
A category $C$ is $U$-locally-small if it is equipped with a …
- 21.3k