*categories: Re: Sheaves as a localisation of separated presheaves[not found] <m1357sgsxp.fsf@bogos-MBP.lan>@ 2023-01-30 22:34 ` Richard Garner2023-02-01 7:16 ` Vaughan Pratt [not found] ` <m1k013bqiq.fsf@mq.edu.au> 1 sibling, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread From: Richard Garner @ 2023-01-30 22:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: categories Hi all, > If (C,J) is a site, then the category Sh(C) can be presented as a > category of fractions Psh(C)[D^-1] where D is the class of J-dense > monomorphisms. Morphisms in here are equivalence classes of partial maps > X --> Y whose domain is dense in X, and where the equivalence relation > is generated by the 2-cells of spans. > > This is all well known. I am wondering if there is a reference for the > following fact: if one restricts to separated presheaves, then every > equivalence class of morphisms has a maximal representative, given by > the dense partial maps X <--< X' ---> Y whose graph X' >---> X*Y is a > J-closed monomorphism. So between separated presheaves, no quotienting > is necessary---beyond that inherent in the notion of subobject---though > now composition is no longer span composition on equivalence classes, > but rather span composition followed by J-closure. Looking more carefully, the proof of this seems to work fine if only Y is separated. So another way of saying the above is that the plus-construction on separated presheaves can be described without taking a quotient. However, thinking about this a bit more I should also fess up that my original statement is in error. Psh(C)[D^-1] is NOT the category of sheaves. It is the result of universally inverting the dense monos, but the category so obtained is not cocomplete. To get a cocomplete category, we need to invert the class of all bidense morphisms. How do we know Psh(C)[D^-1] isn't cocomplete? Well, if it were, then the localisation functor Psh(C) --> Psh(C)[D^-1], which obviously preserves colimits, would necessarily be sheafification Psh(C) --> Sh(C) (by the universal property of the latter), with as right adjoint the singular functor of C --> Psh(C) --> Psh(C)[D^-1]. But the monad induced by this adjunction on Psh(C) would then be the single plus construction, which is well-known not to be the reflector into the category of sheaves. (This had me worried for a while, as it seemed I had come up with an interesting proof of _|_.) On the other hand, it seems to be totally fine to describe Sh(C) as SepPsh(C)[D^-1], because the latter is the Kleisli category for the single-plus construction on SepPsh(C); and then the above quotient-free description does pertain. I realise I am basically talking to myself at this point but figure I should try to set the record straight! Richard [For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

*[not found] ` <m1k013bqiq.fsf@mq.edu.au>categories: Re: Sheaves as a localisation of separated presheaves@ 2023-01-30 22:53 ` Richard Garner0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread From: Richard Garner @ 2023-01-30 22:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: categories > the localisation functor Psh(C) --> Psh(C)[D^-1], which obviously > preserves colimits, Here it is perhaps better to say "which does not obviously preserve colimits". But the point remains the same: Psh(C) --> Psh(C)[D^-1] is localisation in the wrong 2-category, CAT rather than COCTS. Richard [For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

*categories: Re: Sheaves as a localisation of separated presheaves2023-01-30 22:34 ` categories: Re: Sheaves as a localisation of separated presheaves Richard Garner@ 2023-02-01 7:16 ` Vaughan Pratt0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread From: Vaughan Pratt @ 2023-02-01 7:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Garner;+Cc:categories " I realise I am basically talking to myself at this point but figure I should try to set the record straight!" Me too. But what I love are the ever so sparse instances of evidence to the contrary that come from unexpected quarters... ;) A big part of the problem is that there are fewer concepts than there are words for them. Unless you know every word for any given concept, you may not realize that someone is agreeing with you. Vaughan [For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2023-02-01 20:40 UTC | newest]Thread overview:3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- [not found] <m1357sgsxp.fsf@bogos-MBP.lan> 2023-01-30 22:34 ` categories: Re: Sheaves as a localisation of separated presheaves Richard Garner 2023-02-01 7:16 ` Vaughan Pratt [not found] ` <m1k013bqiq.fsf@mq.edu.au> 2023-01-30 22:53 ` Richard Garner

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox