Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Aleks Kissinger
Newsgroups: gmane.science.mathematics.categories
Subject: Re: Functors and limits
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 22:12:36 +0100
Lines: 38
Approved: news@gmane.org
Message-ID:
References:
Reply-To: Aleks Kissinger
NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1303862067 12218 80.91.229.12 (26 Apr 2011 23:54:27 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 23:54:27 +0000 (UTC)
To: categories
Original-X-From: majordomo@mlist.mta.ca Wed Apr 27 01:54:22 2011
Return-path:
Envelope-to: gsmc-categories@m.gmane.org
Original-Received: from smtpx.mta.ca ([138.73.1.4])
by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
(envelope-from )
id 1QEs5F-0006ug-QR
for gsmc-categories@m.gmane.org; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 01:54:21 +0200
Original-Received: from mlist.mta.ca ([138.73.1.63]:58660)
by smtpx.mta.ca with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
(envelope-from )
id 1QEs3L-0001Pp-AI; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 20:52:23 -0300
Original-Received: from majordomo by mlist.mta.ca with local (Exim 4.71)
(envelope-from )
id 1QEs3H-0006jm-Me
for categories-list@mlist.mta.ca; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 20:52:20 -0300
In-Reply-To:
Precedence: bulk
Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.science.mathematics.categories:6644
Archived-At:
Correction:
1. reflects limits if F*(k) contains only limiting cones
On 26 April 2011 16:15, Aleks Kissinger wrote:
> Dear categorists,
>
> The "standard" definitions for functors doing nice things with limits
> have always seemed a bit clumsy to me. Here's what I think is quite a
> natural way to unroll the quantifiers:
>
> For a functor F : C --> D and a cone k, let F*(k) be the class of all
> cones k' in C s.t. F(k') =3D k.
>
> For all limiting cones k in D, F....
> =A01. reflects limits if F*(k) !=3D {} implies F*(k) contains a limiting =
cone
> =A02. lifts limits if F*(k) contains a limiting cone
> =A03. lifts limits uniquely if F*(k) contains exactly 1 limiting cone,
> but possibly other cones
> =A04. creates limits if F*(k) =3D {k'}, for k' a limiting cone
>
> This seems to read much more cleanly than the usual, quantifier-laden
> version that seems to be in most standard texts. Of course, they're
> all still there in the def, but there is no ambiguity in how they
> nest. For example, the difference in 3 in 4 ranges from subtle to
> all-but-invisible in most of the places I've seen them defined. Does
> this definition, or some close relative exist somewhere? If not, is it
> problematic somehow? For example, do you get into trouble when F*(k)
> is a proper class?
>
> Thanks!
> Aleks
>
[For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]