From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.science.mathematics.categories/6025
Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: "Prof. Peter Johnstone"
Newsgroups: gmane.science.mathematics.categories
Subject: Re: Tensor of monads
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 15:17:32 +0100 (BST)
Message-ID:
References:
Reply-To: "Prof. Peter Johnstone"
NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1280788460 24102 80.91.229.12 (2 Aug 2010 22:34:20 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 22:34:20 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: Categories mailing list
To: Richard Garner
Original-X-From: majordomo@mlist.mta.ca Tue Aug 03 00:34:19 2010
Return-path:
Envelope-to: gsmc-categories@m.gmane.org
Original-Received: from smtpx.mta.ca ([138.73.1.138])
by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
(envelope-from )
id 1Og3aH-00025H-Su
for gsmc-categories@m.gmane.org; Tue, 03 Aug 2010 00:34:14 +0200
Original-Received: from mlist.mta.ca ([138.73.1.63]:56350)
by smtpx.mta.ca with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
(envelope-from )
id 1Og3ZA-0007mh-Vw; Mon, 02 Aug 2010 19:33:04 -0300
Original-Received: from majordomo by mlist.mta.ca with local (Exim 4.71)
(envelope-from )
id 1Og3Z7-0002Zr-RJ
for categories-list@mlist.mta.ca; Mon, 02 Aug 2010 19:33:01 -0300
In-Reply-To:
Precedence: bulk
Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.science.mathematics.categories:6025
Archived-At:
Dear Richard,
Your (*) is not an additional condition. Being a sheaf for both J and J'
is equivalent to being a sheaf for their join (which I presume is what you
mean by J n J'). For a proof, see A4.5.16 in the Elephant.
Peter
---------------------------
On Sun, 1 Aug 2010, Richard Garner wrote:
> Further to my earlier question:
>
> -- Given idempotent monads S, T on a category C for which we can speak of
>> the tensor of S and T, is it always the case that S * T is isomorphic to S +
>> T?
>>
>
> I think I'm now happy that the answer is "no". Consider, as in my previous
> message, a presheaf category [D^op, Set]. Let S and T be the idempotent
> monads corresponding to two
> Grothendieck topologies J and J' on [D^op, Set]. Then S + T is the monad
> whose algebras are presheaves which are simultaneously J-sheaves and
> J'-sheaves. On the other hand,
> S * T has as algebras those presheaves X which are both J-sheaves and
> J'-sheaves, but which satisfy an additional axiom (*). This axiom may be
> expressed most expediently when D has finite products; so let us assume that
> now. The condition says:
>
> (*) Let f_i : U_i --> U be J-covering, and let g_k : V_k --> V be
> J'-covering. Let ( x_ik \in X(U_i x V_k) ) be a compatible family for ( f_i
> x g_k : U_i x V_j --> U x V ). Then the two natural ways of patching to an
> element of X(U x V) agree.
>
> These two ways of patching are as follows. For the first, note that since (
> f_i x V_k | i \in I ) is J-covering for each k in K, we may patch to obtain
> elements ( y_k \in X(U x V_k) | k \in K ). Then since ( U x g_k | k \in K )
> is J'-covering, we may patch these to obtain an element z \in X(U x V). For
> the second way of patching, we proceed entirely analogously, but this time
> going via a family ( y'_i \in X(U_i x V) | i \in I).
>
> Now (*) is a genuine extra condition which as far as I can see is not a
> consequence of being both a J-sheaf and a J'-sheaf, so that S + T algebras
> are not the same as S * T algebras. Note, however, that (*) _is_ a
> consequence of being a (J n J')-sheaf, since ( f_i x g_j ) is covering in J
> n J'. On the other hand, I'm not sure if (*) implies being a (J n J')-sheaf,
> as I conjectured in my previous message; I don't have an Elephant to hand to
> check.
>
> Richard
[For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]