From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.science.mathematics.categories/2860
Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: "Prof. Peter Johnstone"
Newsgroups: gmane.science.mathematics.categories
Subject: Re: Two topos questions
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 21:22:46 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID:
References: <2cc0d36c0511012253p1a15630ay1c0eb35f724905db@mail.gmail.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1241018948 6121 80.91.229.2 (29 Apr 2009 15:29:08 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:29:08 +0000 (UTC)
To: categories@mta.ca
Original-X-From: rrosebru@mta.ca Wed Nov 2 20:29:27 2005 -0400
Return-path:
Envelope-to: categories-list@mta.ca
Delivery-date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 20:29:27 -0400
Original-Received: from Majordom by mailserv.mta.ca with local (Exim 4.52)
id 1EXSqG-0005yD-Ve
for categories-list@mta.ca; Wed, 02 Nov 2005 20:20:33 -0400
In-Reply-To: <2cc0d36c0511012253p1a15630ay1c0eb35f724905db@mail.gmail.com>
Original-Sender: cat-dist@mta.ca
Precedence: bulk
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 5
Original-Lines: 44
Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.science.mathematics.categories:2860
Archived-At:
On Wed, 2 Nov 2005, Peter Arndt wrote:
> Hi, category theorists,
> 1. In a message to the categories list from 15. jan.1997 (that message can
> be seen at http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/catlist/1999/finite-topos) Lawvere
> talks about "the ... internal topos ... which parametrizes the decidable
> K-finites". Does anyone know what exactly is that internal topos? Is there
> some morphism that can be seen as the indexed family of decidable K-finites
> (just like the generic cardinal "is" the indexed family of finite cardinals
> and can be used to construct the full internal subcategory of finite
> cardinals)?
I can't remember exactly what Bill was talking about in that posting.
However, there is no hope of `parametrizing' decidable K-finite objects
by an internal category, unless the ambient topos has a natural number
object (cf. the remarks on pp. 1058-9 of "Sketches of an Elephant"), and
if it does the decidable K-finites are exactly the objects locally
isomorphic to finite cardinals. So I suspect that he was referring to
the internal category of finite cardinals.
> 2. An object Y of a topos is said to have locally a property P if there is
> an object Z with global support such that Z*(Y) has the property P. For the
> topos of sheaves on a T1-space X (and a property P stable under pullback
> along subterminals), I convinced myself that this implies the existence of a
> covering of X, such that P holds on the restriction of Y to each open set of
> the covering. Can this also be proved for schemes or other classes of
> topological spaces, maybe with additional conditions on P?
Yes, of course -- this is exactly the geometric intuition behind this
use of "locally". One needs to assume that P is stable under arbitrary
pullback (which will certainly be the case if it's expressible in the
internal language of a topos). Then, in any topos generated by
subterminals (in particular, in any topos of sheaves on a space),
every cover Z -->> 1 is dominated by one of the form
\coprod_i U_i -->> 1, where the U_i are a family of subterminals
covering 1 in the classical sense. So P holds locally for Y iff it
holds for the restriction of Y to each member of some cover in
the classical sense.
Peter Johnstone