From: ptj@maths.cam.ac.uk
To: Thomas Streicher <streicher@mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de>
Cc: "categories@mta.ca" <categories@mta.ca>
Subject: Re: locales such that the associated topos is subdiscrete?
Date: 22 Jul 2020 10:14:06 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <E1jyFKW-0003wL-OY@rr.mta.ca> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <E1jj6Jn-0004P1-Jd@rr.mta.ca>
On Jun 10 2020, Thomas Streicher wrote:
>As I was just told by Matias Menni an answer to my question is also
>provided in Prop.6.3.5 of Pieter Hofstra's Thesis.
>
>Maybe I should explain a bit why I asked this question. In
>arxiv:2005.06019 Jonas Frey and I have characterized triposes over a
>base topos SS as regular functors F from SS to a topos EE such that
>
>1. every object of EE appears as subquotient of some FI
>2. F^*Sub_EE admits a generic family.
>
>What we had to leave as an open question whether triposes over SS = Set
>inducing the same topos are equivalent. In Hyland, Johnstone and Pitts's
>paper introcing triposes this question was aked for localic toposes
>and remained unanswered since the last 40 years.
>Krivine's work on classical realizability has come up with an
>alternative characterization of boolean triposes over Set and he has
>shown that F : Set->EE is the inverse image part of a localic g.m. iff
>F preserves 2. But it is still open whether (boolean) triposes F : Set->EE
>with EE loclic are nevessarily isomorphic to Delta : Set -> EE.
>
>BTW if one drops condition 2 there is a simple answer. For natural
>numbers n > 0 the functors F_n : Set->Set sending X to X^n are all
>triposes in this weaker sense and pairwise not isomorphic. As explained
>in my Paper with Jonas these generalized triposes are precisely those
>introduced by Andy Pitts in his 1999 paper "Tripos Theory in Retrospect".
>In many respects this weaker notion is more natural. The only
>disadvantage is that less is expressible in the internal language of
>the base topos SS.
>
>Thomas
>
>
This is NOT an open question, despite being stated as such in Jaap van
Oosten's book; indeed, I knew the answer before Ieke raised the question at
Jaap's PhD viva (but Ieke never bothered to ask me ...). There is a proof
in my paper "Geometric morphisms of realizability toposes", TAC 28 (2013),
241.
Peter Johnstone
[For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-07-22 9:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-06-08 18:26 streicher
[not found] ` <d5a225f6c7f44af19ce8bcfc647411c3@uantwerpen.be>
2020-06-10 10:40 ` Thomas Streicher
2020-07-22 9:14 ` ptj [this message]
2020-07-22 16:33 ` Thomas Streicher
2020-06-09 9:09 Jens Hemelaer
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=E1jyFKW-0003wL-OY@rr.mta.ca \
--to=ptj@maths.cam.ac.uk \
--cc=categories@mta.ca \
--cc=streicher@mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de \
/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).