categories - Category Theory list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Toby Bartels <categories@TobyBartels.name>
To: Categories <categories@mta.ca>
Subject: Re: Terminology
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 13:05:48 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130429200548.GA21933@ugcs.caltech.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <E1UWZu5-0006xa-VT@mlist.mta.ca>

Thomas Streicher wrote:

>Jean B?nabou wrote:

>>What would you call a category X such that the functor X --> 1 is
>>full and faithful? Please don't tell me what they are, I  know that.

>Sticking to the pattern I suggested I'd call it "essentially subterminal".

I learnt to call that an "indiscrete category", so I probably would.
(Another term that I've heard is "chaotic category", which I never liked.)
Of course, I could also call it a "truth value",
but only in a context where I would expect this to be understood
(and being "non-evil", that is working up to equivalence,
is not actually sufficient for that).  Thus the nLab has
http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/indiscrete+category as its own page.

>>Non evil is essentially evil.
>>I rather like this conclusion, don't you?

It is beautiful, but is it accurate?

>I'd expect the people abhoring evilness would
>say that full and faithful and essentially surjective is an "evil" notion
>of equivalence as opposed to the "good" one of adjoint pair where unit and
>counit are isos. The latter makes sense in any 2-category whereas the former
>doesn't. However, often you just get the "evil" version when not having
>a strong form of AC (for classes) available.

On the contrary, an ff and eso functor between two categories
is enough for the people who abhor evil, as far as I know,
to decide that the categories are equivalent (and so essentially the same).
Yet at the same time, these people tend to abhor AC!  How can this be?
It works if one works in a 2-category whose 1-morphisms are anafunctors.
Then it is a theorem requiring no choice (and true internal to any topos)
that any ff and eso functor can be enriched to an adjoint equivalence
(and in an essentially unique way).

Of course, "abhor" here should really be read as "consider optional".
It is possible to work with strict categories, or to work with AC,
but the main principles and results of category theory do not require either.


--Toby


[For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]


  reply	other threads:[~2013-04-29 20:05 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 64+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-04-24 17:13 Terminology Jean Bénabou
2013-04-24 23:04 ` Terminology David Roberts
2013-04-27 13:08 ` Terminology Thomas Streicher
     [not found] ` <20130427130857.GC16801@mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de>
2013-04-28  3:49   ` Terminology Jean Bénabou
2013-04-28 22:47     ` Terminology Olivier Gerard
     [not found] ` <557435A6-4568-4012-8C63-E031931F41FB@wanadoo.fr>
2013-04-28 14:17   ` Terminology Thomas Streicher
2013-04-29 20:05     ` Toby Bartels [this message]
2013-04-30  0:58       ` Terminology Peter May
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2017-02-11 20:42 Terminology Fred E.J. Linton
2017-02-14  8:48 ` Terminology Steve Vickers
     [not found] ` <02568D97-0A72-4CA8-8900-BDE11E890890@cs.bham.ac.uk>
2017-02-14  9:39   ` Terminology Jean Benabou
2017-02-09 22:03 Terminology Andrée Ehresmann
2017-02-08  8:03 Terminology Jean Benabou
2017-02-08 16:34 ` Terminology Jirí Adámek
2017-02-10  1:42   ` Terminology George Janelidze
2017-02-08 21:40 ` Terminology Carsten Führmann
2017-02-09 11:31 ` Terminology Thomas Streicher
     [not found] ` <20170208180636.18346065.28939.42961@rbccm.com>
2017-02-09 16:38   ` Terminology Jean Benabou
2017-02-11 15:07     ` Terminology Steve Vickers
2013-05-02  3:57 Terminology Fred E.J. Linton
2013-05-03 11:53 ` Terminology Robert Dawson
2013-05-02  3:57 Terminology Fred E.J. Linton
2013-04-30  1:20 Terminology Fred E.J. Linton
2010-09-29  2:03 terminology Todd Trimble
2010-09-28  4:38 terminology Eduardo J. Dubuc
2010-05-27 18:31 terminology Colin McLarty
2010-05-19 10:38 Re terminology: Ronnie Brown
2010-05-20  7:58 ` soloviev
2010-05-20 19:53   ` terminology Eduardo J. Dubuc
     [not found] ` <AANLkTikre9x4Qikw0mqOl1qZs9DDSkcBu3CXWA05OTQT@mail.gmail.com>
2010-05-21 17:00   ` Re terminology: Ronnie Brown
     [not found]     ` <B3C24EA955FF0C4EA14658997CD3E25E370F5827@CAHIER.gst.uqam.ca>
2010-05-22 21:43       ` terminology Ronnie Brown
     [not found]       ` <4BF84FF3.7060806@btinternet.com>
2010-05-22 22:44         ` terminology Joyal, André
2010-05-23 15:39           ` terminology Colin McLarty
2010-05-24 18:04             ` terminology Vaughan Pratt
2010-05-26  3:08               ` terminology Toby Bartels
2010-05-25 14:08             ` terminology John Baez
2010-05-26  8:03             ` terminology Reinhard Boerger
2010-05-25 19:39 ` terminology Colin McLarty
2010-05-29 21:47   ` terminology Toby Bartels
2010-05-30 19:15     ` terminology Thorsten Altenkirch
     [not found]     ` <A46C7965-B4E7-42E6-AE97-6C1D930AC878@cs.nott.ac.uk>
2010-05-30 20:51       ` terminology Toby Bartels
2010-06-01  7:39         ` terminology Thorsten Altenkirch
2010-06-01 13:33           ` terminology Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine
     [not found]         ` <7BF50141-7775-4D3C-A4AF-D543891666B9@cs.nott.ac.uk>
2010-06-01 18:22           ` terminology Toby Bartels
     [not found] ` <AANLkTilG69hcX7ZV8zrLpQ_nf1pCmyktsnuE0RyJtQYF@mail.gmail.com>
2010-05-26  8:28   ` terminology John Baez
2010-05-16 12:44 terminology Peter Selinger
2010-05-13 17:17 bilax_monoidal_functors Michael Shulman
2010-05-14 14:43 ` terminology (was: bilax_monoidal_functors) Peter Selinger
2010-05-15 19:52   ` terminology Toby Bartels
2010-05-08  3:27 RE : bilax monoidal functors John Baez
2010-05-10 18:16 ` bilax_monoidal_functors?= John Baez
2010-05-11  8:28   ` bilax_monoidal_functors?= Michael Batanin
2010-05-12  3:02     ` bilax_monoidal_functors?= Toby Bartels
2010-05-13 23:09       ` bilax_monoidal_functors?= Michael Batanin
2010-05-15 16:05         ` terminology Joyal, André
2007-01-27 17:06 terminology wlawvere
2007-01-26 23:30 terminology Eduardo Dubuc
2005-12-30  1:16 terminology vs27
2005-12-29 19:09 terminology Nikita Danilov
2005-12-10  3:51 Terminology jean benabou
2005-12-21 20:04 ` Terminology Eduardo Dubuc
2005-12-26 19:47   ` terminology Vaughan Pratt
2005-12-29 23:17     ` terminology Eduardo Dubuc
2006-01-04 14:59       ` terminology Eduardo Dubuc
2003-10-17 15:19 terminology Marco Grandis
2003-10-16 21:39 terminology James Stasheff
2001-04-09 11:06 Terminology Krzysztof Worytkiewicz
2000-12-14  6:17 Terminology Max Kelly
     [not found] <3a35cdd73a39f901@amyris.wanadoo.fr>
2000-12-13 11:10 ` Terminology Dr. P.T. Johnstone
2000-12-13  1:17 Terminology Steve Lack
2000-12-12  8:19 Terminology Jean Benabou
2000-01-28 12:02 terminology James Stasheff
2000-01-28  9:57 terminology Marco Grandis
2000-01-27 19:28 terminology James Stasheff
2000-01-27 21:04 ` terminology Paul Glenn

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20130429200548.GA21933@ugcs.caltech.edu \
    --to=categories@tobybartels.name \
    --cc=categories@mta.ca \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).