* preprint
@ 2013-11-18 10:51 Marco Grandis
2013-11-23 1:41 ` preprint F. William Lawvere
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Marco Grandis @ 2013-11-18 10:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: categories
[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1356 bytes --]
The following preprint is available:
-------
E. Carletti - M. Grandis
Fundamental groupoids as generalised pushouts of codiscrete groupoids
Dip. Mat. Univ. Genova, Preprint 603 (2013).
http://www.dima.unige.it/~grandis/GpdClm.pdf
Abstract. Every differentiable manifold X has a good cover, where
all open sets and their finite intersections are contractible. Using
a generalised van Kampen theorem for open covers we deduce that the
fundamental groupoid of X is a generalised pushout of codiscrete
groupoids and inclusions.
This fact motivates the present brief study of generalised pushouts.
In particular, we show that every groupoid is up to equivalence a
generalised pushout of codiscrete subgroupoids, and that (in any
category) finite generalised pushouts amount to ordinary pushouts and
coequalisers.
-------
Before submitting it, I would like to know if the generalised
pushouts we are using (or similar colimits) have been considered
elsewhere.
(They are not simply connected colimits, in the sense of Bob Pare,
and indeed they cannot be constructed with pushouts.)
With best regards to all colleagues and friends. In particular to
Ronnie Brown and Bob Pare, whose results are used in this preprint.
Marco
[For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* RE: preprint
2013-11-18 10:51 preprint Marco Grandis
@ 2013-11-23 1:41 ` F. William Lawvere
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: F. William Lawvere @ 2013-11-23 1:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: marco grandis, categories
Dear Ettore and Marco
Much of your very interesting paper is actually taking place in an unjustly neglected topos.
The classifying topos for nontrivial Boolean algebras is concretely just presheaves on nonempty finite sets. It was one of two examples in my 1988 Macquarie talk "Toposes generated by codiscrete objects in
algebraic topology and functional analysis" *
Like many non-localic toposes, this one unites pair of identical but adjointly opposite copies of the base topos of abstract sets,namely a subtopos of codiscretes and its negation, the subcategory ofdiscretes or constant presheaves. Because in this very special casethe Yoneda inclusion is a restriction of the codiscrete inclusion, it is well justified to consider this topos as "codiscretely generated " (wrt colimits).
This topos contains the category of groupoids as a full reflective subcategory.In fact the reflector preserves finite products, and is a refinement of the syntax for presenting groups. It should probably be considered as the fundamental combinatorial Poincare functor .
That point of view requires viewing the objects of the topos as combinatorial spaces, which is out of fashion even though afull coreflective subcategory is that of classical simplicial complexes ( or "simplicial schemes"according to Godement). The fear is that geometric realization will not be exact. But as Joyal and Wraith pointed out 30 years ago, one need only replace the usual interval with the weakinfinite-dimensional sphere as basic parameterizer (of Zitterbewegungen instead of ordinary paths ?) in order to obtain a geometric mo\x10rphism of the singular/realization kind from any reasonable topological topos.
Actually the groupoids are already at a low level in the sequence ofessential subtoposes: if the trivial topos is taken as level minus infinity,the discrete as level zero, and the lowest level whose skeleton functor detects connectivity as level one, then the lowest level whose UIAO is compatible seems to be three. Explicit consideration of the role of the groupoids may a help in calculating the precise Aufhebung function.
Best wishesBill
*the other example was the Gaeta topos on countably infinite sets, closely related to the Kolmogoroff-Mackey bornological generalizations ofBanach spaces, which are vector space objects in that topos.
> From: grandis@dima.unige.it
> Subject: categories: preprint
> Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 11:51:29 +0100
> To: categories@mta.ca
>
> The following preprint is available:
>
> -------
> E. Carletti - M. Grandis
> Fundamental groupoids as generalised pushouts of codiscrete groupoids
> Dip. Mat. Univ. Genova, Preprint 603 (2013).
> http://www.dima.unige.it/~grandis/GpdClm.pdf
>
> Abstract. Every differentiable manifold X has a ‘good cover’, where
> all open sets and their finite intersections are contractible. Using
> a generalised van Kampen theorem for open covers we deduce that the
> fundamental groupoid of X is a ‘generalised pushout’ of codiscrete
> groupoids and inclusions.
> This fact motivates the present brief study of generalised pushouts.
> In particular, we show that every groupoid is up to equivalence a
> generalised pushout of codiscrete subgroupoids, and that (in any
> category) finite generalised pushouts amount to ordinary pushouts and
> coequalisers.
> -------
>
> Before submitting it, I would like to know if the ‘generalised
> pushouts’ we are using (or similar colimits) have been considered
> elsewhere.
> (They are not simply connected colimits, in the sense of Bob Pare,
> and indeed they cannot be constructed with pushouts.)
>
> With best regards to all colleagues and friends. In particular to
> Ronnie Brown and Bob Pare, whose results are used in this preprint.
>
> Marco
>
[For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: preprint
2013-11-26 10:11 ` preprint Marco Grandis
@ 2013-11-27 8:40 ` Jean Bénabou
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Jean Bénabou @ 2013-11-27 8:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Marco Grandis; +Cc: categories
Dear Marco,
Many thanks for your explanations, and of course for giving me the possibility to study your book, which I shall do very soon.
I have a notion which I hesitated to call directed category for fear of a conflict in using the word directed. Your non technical use of this word encourage me to use it, but I shall first read your book before I make up my mind.
Best regards, Jean
Le 26 nov. 2013 à 11:11, Marco Grandis a écrit :
> Dear Jean,
>
> Presheaves on all finite ordinals are called augmented simplicial sets.
>
> As to 'directed space' I use now this term in a non-technical sense,
> as referring to any topological structure suitable for directed
> algebraic topology, like:
>
> - preordered topological space,
> - d-space, i.e. space with distinguished paths,
> - c-space, i.e. space with distinguished cubes,
> - etc.
>
> See my book on 'Directed Algebraic Topology'. Thanks to Cambridge Un.
> Press, it can be freely (and legally) downloaded from:
>
> http://www.dima.unige.it/~grandis/BkDAT_page.html
>
>
> (When I first used the term 'directed space', it was equivalent to d-
> space; later I thought it was better to keep it for a more general
> meaning.)
>
> Best wishes Marco
[For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: preprint
[not found] ` <454E0BEF-6277-435A-999D-DC4CC02B7170@wanadoo.fr>
@ 2013-11-26 10:11 ` Marco Grandis
2013-11-27 8:40 ` preprint Jean Bénabou
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Marco Grandis @ 2013-11-26 10:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jean Bénabou, categories
Dear Jean,
Presheaves on all finite ordinals are called augmented simplicial sets.
As to 'directed space' I use now this term in a non-technical sense,
as referring to any topological structure suitable for directed
algebraic topology, like:
- preordered topological space,
- d-space, i.e. space with distinguished paths,
- c-space, i.e. space with distinguished cubes,
- etc.
See my book on 'Directed Algebraic Topology'. Thanks to Cambridge Un.
Press, it can be freely (and legally) downloaded from:
http://www.dima.unige.it/~grandis/BkDAT_page.html
(When I first used the term 'directed space', it was equivalent to d-
space; later I thought it was better to keep it for a more general
meaning.)
Best wishes Marco
[For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: preprint
2013-11-24 0:38 ` preprint F. William Lawvere
@ 2013-11-25 9:11 ` Marco Grandis
[not found] ` <454E0BEF-6277-435A-999D-DC4CC02B7170@wanadoo.fr>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Marco Grandis @ 2013-11-25 9:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: F. William Lawvere, categories
Dear Bill,
The history of simplicial terms is certainly complicated and often
contradictory.
Presently, the term of 'simplicial set/object' seems to be generally
accepted (for a presheaf on positive finite ordinals) and this notion
seems to be mostly considered as the leading one in its framework.
My modest opinion is that simplicial terminology should be organised
taking this term as the leading one.
> It does not seem accurate to consider that there is an "opposition
> "between the ordered and unordered cases.
Fine, I agree, I should replace 'opposition' with 'distinction'.
Certainly, I would not speak of opposition for the relationships
set / preordered set
space / directed space
classical algebraic topology / directed algebraic topology.
Your comments on distributive lattices are most interesting.
Best wishes Marco
On 24 Nov 2013, at 01:38, F. William Lawvere wrote:
> Dear Marco
> If I understand the history, it is the term "simplicial sets" that
> was somewhat misleading : Classically the simplicial complexes
> (based ,from a categorical view, actually on finite families not
> just finite subsets)
> were an important combinatorial structure and indeed still are.
> Eilenberg and others recognized the important role in topological
> calculations for "ordered simplices " and the corresponding
> toposwas said to consist of "semisimplicial sets". But then the
> prefixes were dropped !
> It does not seem accurate to consider that there is an "opposition
> "between the ordered and unordered cases. They are just two
> subtoposesof the distributive lattice classifier, which consists of
> presheaves onfinite posets. The classifying topos point of view is
> helpful, because it is the choice of an algebraic structure, of
> the kind classified, in a topological topos that gives rise to an
> exact singular/realization pair. For example any topological
> distributive lattice gives rise to such ;if it happens to be
> totally ordered, these adjoint functors factor throughthe
> simplicial subtopos. But a boolean algebra whose operations are
> continuous represents a realization that depends only on the
> subtoposthat depends only on the finite trivially ordered sets. The
> symmetry is concretely the action of boolean negation. The fact
> that any distributive lattice space embeds in a boolean algebra
> space helps to relate these .
> There are other subtoposes (i.e. strengthenings of the theory of
> distributive lattices), so that precise calculation of the
> Aufhebung andof coHeyting boundary should in particular be relevant
> to combinatorial topology.
> There may be a connection with your earlier work that employed
> distributive lattices in the analysis of diagrams. When one
> represents ageometric category in presheaves on a subcategory P, it
> is helpful to consider that P parameterizes the basic figure shapes
> that determine the structureof a general object. In the category of
> categories, the basic figures arefinite commutative diagrams, are
> they not ? Thus, if we do not insist on a minimalistic notion of
> nerve, distributive lattices emerge.
> Best wishesBill
[For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: preprint
2013-11-23 11:03 preprint Marco Grandis
@ 2013-11-24 0:38 ` F. William Lawvere
2013-11-25 9:11 ` preprint Marco Grandis
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: F. William Lawvere @ 2013-11-24 0:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Marco Grandis, categories
Dear Marco
If I understand the history, it is the term "simplicial sets" that was somewhat misleading : Classically the simplicial complexes (based ,from a categorical view, actually on finite families not just finite subsets)
were an important combinatorial structure and indeed still are. Eilenberg and others recognized the important role in topological calculations for "ordered simplices " and the corresponding toposwas said to consist of "semisimplicial sets". But then the prefixes were dropped !
It does not seem accurate to consider that there is an "opposition "between the ordered and unordered cases. They are just two subtoposesof the distributive lattice classifier, which consists of presheaves onfinite posets. The classifying topos point of view is helpful, because it is the choice of an algebraic structure, of the kind classified, in a topological topos that gives rise to an exact singular/realization pair. For example any topological distributive lattice gives rise to such ;if it happens to be totally ordered, these adjoint functors factor throughthe simplicial subtopos. But a boolean algebra whose operations are continuous represents a realization that depends only on the subtoposthat depends only on the finite trivially ordered sets. The symmetry is concretely the action of boolean negation. The fact that any distributive lattice space embeds in a boolean algebra space helps to relate these .
There are other subtoposes (i.e. strengthenings of the theory of distributive lattices), so that precise calculation of the Aufhebung andof coHeyting boundary should in particular be relevant to combinatorial topology.
There may be a connection with your earlier work that employed distributive lattices in the analysis of diagrams. When one represents ageometric category in presheaves on a subcategory P, it is helpful to consider that P parameterizes the basic figure shapes that determine the structureof a general object. In the category of categories, the basic figures arefinite commutative diagrams, are they not ? Thus, if we do not insist on a minimalistic notion of nerve, distributive lattices emerge.
Best wishesBill
> From: grandis43@hotmail.com
> To: wlawvere@hotmail.com; categories@mta.ca
> Subject: categories: Re: preprint
> Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 12:03:56 +0100
>
> [Please do not use this e-address, but only the usual one at dima.unige.it]
> Dear Bill,
>
> Thank you very much for all these interesting comments and suggestions, we'll think of them.
> We also received others from Ronnie Brown, Marta Bunge and Bob Pare; we are preparing a revised version.
>
> I am quite convinced of the importance of presheaves on nonempty finite sets. Just for the pleasure of friendly
> discussing, let me add that I like calling them 'symmetric simplicial sets' :-) - a term against which you protested
> sometime ago, in this list if I remember well; at least in a context where their links with simplicial sets and
> algebraic topology are relevant.
>
> On the other hand, I think that the classical term of 'simplicial complex' is misleading.
> In fact, they sit inside symmetric simplicial sets (not inside simplicial sets) as the objects that
> 'live on their points', according to your terminology. I used for them the term 'combinatorial space',
> while I used 'directed combinatorial space' for the (non classical) directed analogue (sitting inside
> simplicial sets), whose objects are defined by privileged finite sequences instead of privileged finite subsets.I think that the opposition between non-directed and directed notions should be kept clear.
> Thanks again and best wishes Marco
>
[For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: preprint
@ 2013-11-23 11:03 Marco Grandis
2013-11-24 0:38 ` preprint F. William Lawvere
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Marco Grandis @ 2013-11-23 11:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: F. William Lawvere, categories
[Please do not use this e-address, but only the usual one at dima.unige.it]
Dear Bill,
Thank you very much for all these interesting comments and suggestions, we'll think of them.
We also received others from Ronnie Brown, Marta Bunge and Bob Pare; we are preparing a revised version.
I am quite convinced of the importance of presheaves on nonempty finite sets. Just for the pleasure of friendly
discussing, let me add that I like calling them 'symmetric simplicial sets' :-) - a term against which you protested
sometime ago, in this list if I remember well; at least in a context where their links with simplicial sets and
algebraic topology are relevant.
On the other hand, I think that the classical term of 'simplicial complex' is misleading.
In fact, they sit inside symmetric simplicial sets (not inside simplicial sets) as the objects that
'live on their points', according to your terminology. I used for them the term 'combinatorial space',
while I used 'directed combinatorial space' for the (non classical) directed analogue (sitting inside
simplicial sets), whose objects are defined by privileged finite sequences instead of privileged finite subsets.I think that the opposition between non-directed and directed notions should be kept clear.
Thanks again and best wishes Marco
On 23/nov/2013, at 02.41, F. William Lawvere wrote:
Dear Ettore and Marco
Much of your very interesting paper is actually taking place
in an unjustly neglected topos.
The classifying topos for nontrivial Boolean algebras is concretely just
presheaves on nonempty finite sets. It was one of two examples in my
1988 Macquarie talk "Toposes generated by codiscrete objects in
algebraic topology and functional analysis" *
Like many non-localic toposes, this one unites pair of identical
but adjointly opposite copies of the base topos of abstract sets,
namely a subtopos of codiscretes and its negation, the subcategory of
discretes or constant presheaves. Because in this very special case
the Yoneda inclusion is a restriction of the codiscrete inclusion,
it is well justified to consider this topos as "codiscretely generated "
(wrt colimits).
This topos contains the category of groupoids as a full reflective subcategory.
In fact the reflector preserves finite products, and is a refinement of
the syntax for presenting groups. It should probably be
considered as the fundamental combinatorial Poincare functor .
That point of view requires viewing the objects of the topos as
combinatorial spaces, which is out of fashion even though a
full coreflective subcategory is that of classical simplicial complexes
( or "simplicial schemes"according to Godement). The fear is that
geometric realization will not be exact. But as Joyal and Wraith
pointed out 30 years ago, one need only replace the usual interval with the weak
infinite-dimensional sphere as basic parameterizer (of Zitterbewegungen
instead of ordinary paths ?) in order to obtain a geometric mo\x10rphism
of the singular/realization kind from any reasonable topological topos.
Actually the groupoids are already at a low level in the sequence of
essential subtoposes: if the trivial topos is taken as level minus infinity,
the discrete as level zero, and the lowest level whose skeleton functor
detects connectivity as level one, then the lowest level whose UIAO is
compatible seems to be three. Explicit consideration of the role of the
groupoids may a help in calculating the precise Aufhebung function.
Best wishes
Bill
*the other example was the Gaeta topos on countably infinite sets,
closely related to the Kolmogoroff-Mackey bornological generalizations of
Banach spaces, which are vector space objects in that topos.
[For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Preprint
@ 2012-01-02 11:51 Marco Grandis
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Marco Grandis @ 2012-01-02 11:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: categories
The following preprint is available, in pdf:
M. Grandis
Coherence and distributive lattices in homological algebra
Dip. Mat. Univ. Genova, Preprint 595 (2012)
http://www.dima.unige.it/~grandis/Lat.pdf
Abstract. Complex systems in homological algebra present problems
of coherence that can be solved by proving the distributivity of the
sublattices of subobjects generated by the system. The main applications
deal with spectral sequences, but the goal of this paper is to convey
the
importance of distributive lattices (of subobjects) in homological
algebra,
to researchers outside of this field; a parallel role played by orthodox
semigroups (of endorelations) is referred to but not developed here.
(This article develops part of a conference at CatAlg2011, Gargnano
(Italy),
in September 2011.)
With best wishes
Marco Grandis
Dipartimento di Matematica
Università di Genova
Via Dodecaneso, 35
16146 Genova
Italy
e-mail: grandis@dima.unige.it
tel: +39 010 353 6805
http://www.dima.unige.it/~grandis/
[For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* preprint
@ 1998-12-19 1:44 Dusko Pavlovic
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Dusko Pavlovic @ 1998-12-19 1:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: CATEGORIES mailing list
Dear All,
As many of you know, December is the season of two column logic/CS
related preprints. The title of mine is:
Towards semantics of guarded induction
and it is at the bottom of the page
http://www.kestrel.edu/HTML/people/pavlovic/
Comments **most** welcome, esp. as I am still a bit in the darkness as
to how to present some parts. This is still an extended abstract, but a
bit more extended and less abstract than the version some of you have
seen before. (Thanks again for the questions that helped me improve it!)
With the very best wishes,
-- Dusko
==============================================================================
Towards semantics of guarded induction
by Dusko Pavlovic
Abstract.
We analyze guarded induction, a coalgebraic method for implementing
abstract data types with infinite elements (e.g. various dynamic
systems, continuous or discrete). It is widely used not just in
computation, but also, tacitly, in many basic constructions of
differential calculus. However, while syntactic characterisations
abound, only the very first steps towards a formal semantics have been
made. A language independent analysis was recently initiated, but just
special cases were covered so far.
In the present paper, we propose a new approach, based on a somewhat
unusual
combination of monads and polynomial categories. The first result is
what appears to be a precise semantic characterisation of guarded
operators on arbitrary final coalgebras.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* preprint
@ 1997-08-07 17:12 categories
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: categories @ 1997-08-07 17:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: categories
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 15:43:23 +1000
From: Michael Batanin <mbatanin@mpce.mq.edu.au>
The preprint
" Finitary monads on globular sets and notions of computad they generate "
is available as
postscript files at
http://www-math.mpce.mq.edu.au/~mbatanin/papers.html
Abstract
Consider a finitary monad on the category of globular sets. We prove
that the category of its algebras is isomorphic to the category
of algebras of an appropriate monad on the
special category (of computads) constructed from the data of the
initial monad. In the case of the free $n$-category monad this
definition coincides with R.Street's definition of $n$-computad. In
the case of a monad generated by a higher operad this allows us to
define a pasting operation in a weak $n$-category. It may be also considered
as the first step toward the proof of equivalence of the different
definitions of weak $n$-categories.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2013-11-27 8:40 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2013-11-18 10:51 preprint Marco Grandis
2013-11-23 1:41 ` preprint F. William Lawvere
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2013-11-23 11:03 preprint Marco Grandis
2013-11-24 0:38 ` preprint F. William Lawvere
2013-11-25 9:11 ` preprint Marco Grandis
[not found] ` <454E0BEF-6277-435A-999D-DC4CC02B7170@wanadoo.fr>
2013-11-26 10:11 ` preprint Marco Grandis
2013-11-27 8:40 ` preprint Jean Bénabou
2012-01-02 11:51 Preprint Marco Grandis
1998-12-19 1:44 preprint Dusko Pavlovic
1997-08-07 17:12 preprint categories
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).