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 adjoint-functors
Search options not deleted
user 24563
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
…
- 3,901
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). …
- 3,901
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 …
- 3,901