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 locales
Search options not deleted
user 61650
Questions taking place in the category of locales, which is given by the opposite of the category of frames. Also appropriate for questions about pointless topology.
6
votes
0
answers
149
views
Spatiality of products of locally compact locales
Is this lemma still valid for a family of locally compact spatial locales, that is, if $\{X_{\alpha}\}_{\alpha}$ is a family of locally compact spatial locales is the locale $\prod_{\alpha}X_{\alpha}$ … Or anyone knows a modification for a countable family of locally compact spatial locales?
Thanks in advanced. …
- 159
3
votes
0
answers
447
views
Topos Theory, internal Heyting Algebra
Given a topos $\mathcal{E}$ with subobject classifier $\Omega$.
If we denote by $N\Omega$ the former of all local operators on $\Omega$, that is, Lawvere–Tierney topologies of $\mathcal{E}$, it is kn …
- 159