* Re: Fibred 2-category of Grothendieck toposes? [not found] <8135_1480682187_58416ACB_8135_508_1_E1cCn2y-0006W1-1X@mlist.mta.ca> @ 2016-12-02 13:30 ` Marta Bunge 2016-12-06 7:59 ` Eduardo Julio Dubuc 0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread From: Marta Bunge @ 2016-12-02 13:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Steve Vickers, Categories Dear Steve, The setting of a 2-category GTop bounded over an elementary topos S has been extensibly worked out in practice in (for instance) the book by Marta Bunge and Jonathon Funk, Singular Coverings of Toposes, LNM 1890, Springer 2006, and in several papers by myself or with collaborators which you can look up in my Research Gate page. The terminology that I have used for it everywhere (including lectures) is Top_S, by which it is not meant Top/S but the sub 2-category of it whose objects are bounded geometric morphisms between elementary toposes, with codomain S. In particular It often becomes necessary to consider change of base. The terminology is well adapted to the consideration of certain distinguished sub 2-categories of Top_S - for instance LTop_S denotes that whose objects are geometric morphisms with codomain S and a locally connected elementary topos. I hope this is useful to you. Cordial regards, Marta > On Dec 2, 2016, at 5:20 AM, Steve Vickers <s.j.vickers@cs.bham.ac.uk> wrote: > > If "Grothendieck topos" means bounded geometric morphism into a given > base S, then by allowing the base to vary we can get a 2-category GTop > of Grothendieck toposes, fibred over some form of ETop (elementary > toposes). This is because pseudopullbacks of bounded geometric morphisms > along arbitrary geometric morphisms exist and are still bounded. (I say > "some form of" ETop because it may be better to restrict the 2-cells > downstairs to be isos, even though we certainly don't want to do the > same upstairs. Also nnos are needed if classifying toposes are to exist.) > > Has anyone worked on that particular combination of bounded and unbounded? > > Steve Vickers. [For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: Re: Fibred 2-category of Grothendieck toposes? 2016-12-02 13:30 ` Fibred 2-category of Grothendieck toposes? Marta Bunge @ 2016-12-06 7:59 ` Eduardo Julio Dubuc 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread From: Eduardo Julio Dubuc @ 2016-12-06 7:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Marta Bunge, Steve Vickers, Categories What about the 1984 Joyal-Tierney "An extension of the Galois theory of Grothendieck", AMS Memoirs 309 ? They already do extensive work concerning bounded topos over an elementary topos, especially exploiting change of base (and explicitely saying so in their introduction). regards e.d. El 12/2/16 a las 10:30, Marta Bunge escribi?: > > Dear Steve, > > The setting of a 2-category GTop bounded over an elementary topos S has been extensibly worked out in practice in (for instance) the book by Marta Bunge and Jonathon Funk, Singular Coverings of Toposes, LNM 1890, Springer 2006, and in several papers by myself or with collaborators which you can look up in my Research Gate page. The terminology that I have used for it everywhere (including lectures) is Top_S, by which it is not meant Top/S but the sub 2-category of it whose objects are bounded geometric morphisms between elementary toposes, with codomain S. In particular It often becomes necessary to consider change of base. The terminology is well adapted to the consideration of certain distinguished sub 2-categories of Top_S - for instance LTop_S denotes that whose objects are geometr ic morphisms with codomain S and a locally connected elementary topos. I hope this is useful to you. > > Cordial regards, > Marta > >> On Dec 2, 2016, at 5:20 AM, Steve Vickers <s.j.vickers@cs.bham.ac.uk> wrote: >> >> If "Grothendieck topos" means bounded geometric morphism into a given >> base S, then by allowing the base to vary we can get a 2-category GTop >> of Grothendieck toposes, fibred over some form of ETop (elementary >> toposes). This is because pseudopullbacks of bounded geometric morphisms >> along arbitrary geometric morphisms exist and are still bounded. (I say >> "some form of" ETop because it may be better to restrict the 2-cells >> downstairs to be isos, even though we certainly don't want to do the >> same upstairs. Also nnos are needed if classifying toposes are to exist.) >> >> Has anyone worked on that particular combination of bounded and unbounded? >> >> Steve Vickers. > > [For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2016-12-06 7:59 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- [not found] <8135_1480682187_58416ACB_8135_508_1_E1cCn2y-0006W1-1X@mlist.mta.ca> 2016-12-02 13:30 ` Fibred 2-category of Grothendieck toposes? Marta Bunge 2016-12-06 7:59 ` Eduardo Julio Dubuc
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).