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 |
4
votes
1
answer
180
views
Almost combinatorial accessible model categories
Theorem: Assume VP. Let $\mathcal{M}$ be an accessible model category
such that there exists a set of generating cofibrations $I$ and such
that all objects are fibrant. Then it is combinatorial.
Pro …
3
votes
2
answers
225
views
Bousfield localization of a left proper accessible model category
What is known about the Bousfield localization of a left proper accessible model category by a set of maps ? (I mean not combinatorial which is already known)
15
votes
2
answers
359
views
Example of non accessible model categories
By curiosity, I would like to see an example of a model category with the underlying category locally presentable which is not accessible in this sense (and just in case: even by using Vopěnka's princ …
8
votes
What was Burroni's sketch for topological spaces?
The category of topological spaces is the category of models of a relational universal strict Horn theory $T$ without equality, i.e. the axioms are of the form $(\forall x)(\phi(x) \rightarrow \psi(x) …
3
votes
Accepted
About small $\omega$-orthogonality classes and Gabriel-Ulmer duality
I understand where is the mistake. $r$ does preserve finite presentability (the proof is straightforward and it is due to the fact that it is a left adjoint of a functor preserving filtered colimits). …
5
votes
1
answer
107
views
About small $\omega$-orthogonality classes and Gabriel-Ulmer duality
I am reading the paper http://www.numdam.org/article/CTGDC_2001__42_1_51_0.pdf fixing the implication $(ii)\Rightarrow (i)$ of Theorem 1.39 of Adamek-Rosicky's book. The correct statement is: if $\mat …
4
votes
1
answer
204
views
About small-orthogonality classes of a locally presentable category
Let $\mathcal{A} \subset \mathcal{K}$ be two locally presentable
categories. $\mathcal{A}$ reflective and closed under filtered
colimits. Then $\mathcal{A}$ is a small-orthogonality class. Let
…
4
votes
3
answers
405
views
About the Yoneda objects of a locally presentable category
This question is a follow-up of Extending functors defined on dense subcategories.
Let $\mathcal{K}$ be a locally presentable category. An object $X$ of
$\mathcal{K}$ is called a Yoneda object i …