Mixing
Well-Pointed categories vs well-pointed topoi
$begingroup$
When reading the definition of a well-pointed category on for example Wikipedia, only the following condition is given:
- The terminal object 1 is a generator.
However the general definition of a well-pointed topos also mentions:
- The terminal object is not a zero object (i.e. it is not initial at the same time)
I can see how being initial would ruin the odds of being a generator as there is only one unique morphism from the initial object to any other object. But if this was the only reason for including condition 2, then condition 1 would suffice.
Is there a more genuine reason for including condition 2?
category-theory topos-theory
asked Jan 27 at 7:21
NDewolfNDewolf
565210
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
When reading the definition of a well-pointed category on for example Wikipedia, only the following condition is given:
- The terminal object 1 is a generator.
However the general definition of a well-pointed topos also mentions:
- The terminal object is not a zero object (i.e. it is not initial at the same time)
I can see how being initial would ruin the odds of being a generator as there is only one unique morphism from the initial object to any other object. But if this was the only reason for including condition 2, then condition 1 would suffice.
Is there a more genuine reason for including condition 2?
category-theory topos-theory
asked Jan 27 at 7:21
NDewolfNDewolf
565210
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Pretty sure it just rules out the trivial category, since any well-pointed categories with a zero object will be trivial. So no, I don't think there's any deep reason.
$endgroup$
– Malice Vidrine
Jan 27 at 7:42
$begingroup$
(Actually there's probably even less reason to mention it in the case of toposes: a topos with a zero object is already trivial, so the lack of a zero object is usually assumed well before one gets to talking about well-pointedness.)
$endgroup$
– Malice Vidrine
Jan 27 at 7:46
$begingroup$
And is there any reason to rule out the trivial category except for that it is not very useful?
$endgroup$
– NDewolf
Jan 27 at 8:58
$begingroup$
Not really. It's one of those things where you'd write a lot of proofs that use phrases like "except for the trivial category" or "this is obviously satisfied in the trivial case, so consider any other case," unless you just rule it out up front for convenience.
$endgroup$
– Malice Vidrine
Jan 27 at 9:08
add a comment |
$begingroup$
When reading the definition of a well-pointed category on for example Wikipedia, only the following condition is given:
- The terminal object 1 is a generator.
However the general definition of a well-pointed topos also mentions:
- The terminal object is not a zero object (i.e. it is not initial at the same time)
I can see how being initial would ruin the odds of being a generator as there is only one unique morphism from the initial object to any other object. But if this was the only reason for including condition 2, then condition 1 would suffice.
Is there a more genuine reason for including condition 2?
category-theory topos-theory
asked Jan 27 at 7:21
NDewolfNDewolf
565210
$endgroup$
When reading the definition of a well-pointed category on for example Wikipedia, only the following condition is given:
- The terminal object 1 is a generator.
However the general definition of a well-pointed topos also mentions:
- The terminal object is not a zero object (i.e. it is not initial at the same time)
I can see how being initial would ruin the odds of being a generator as there is only one unique morphism from the initial object to any other object. But if this was the only reason for including condition 2, then condition 1 would suffice.
Is there a more genuine reason for including condition 2?
category-theory topos-theory
category-theory topos-theory
asked Jan 27 at 7:21
NDewolfNDewolf
565210
asked Jan 27 at 7:21
NDewolfNDewolf
565210
asked Jan 27 at 7:21
NDewolfNDewolf
565210
asked Jan 27 at 7:21
NDewolfNDewolf
565210
asked Jan 27 at 7:21
NDewolfNDewolf
565210
565210
1
$begingroup$
Pretty sure it just rules out the trivial category, since any well-pointed categories with a zero object will be trivial. So no, I don't think there's any deep reason.
$endgroup$
– Malice Vidrine
Jan 27 at 7:42
$begingroup$
(Actually there's probably even less reason to mention it in the case of toposes: a topos with a zero object is already trivial, so the lack of a zero object is usually assumed well before one gets to talking about well-pointedness.)
$endgroup$
– Malice Vidrine
Jan 27 at 7:46
$begingroup$
And is there any reason to rule out the trivial category except for that it is not very useful?
$endgroup$
– NDewolf
Jan 27 at 8:58
$begingroup$
Not really. It's one of those things where you'd write a lot of proofs that use phrases like "except for the trivial category" or "this is obviously satisfied in the trivial case, so consider any other case," unless you just rule it out up front for convenience.
$endgroup$
– Malice Vidrine
Jan 27 at 9:08
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
Pretty sure it just rules out the trivial category, since any well-pointed categories with a zero object will be trivial. So no, I don't think there's any deep reason.
$endgroup$
– Malice Vidrine
Jan 27 at 7:42
$begingroup$
(Actually there's probably even less reason to mention it in the case of toposes: a topos with a zero object is already trivial, so the lack of a zero object is usually assumed well before one gets to talking about well-pointedness.)
$endgroup$
– Malice Vidrine
Jan 27 at 7:46
$begingroup$
And is there any reason to rule out the trivial category except for that it is not very useful?
$endgroup$
– NDewolf
Jan 27 at 8:58
$begingroup$
Not really. It's one of those things where you'd write a lot of proofs that use phrases like "except for the trivial category" or "this is obviously satisfied in the trivial case, so consider any other case," unless you just rule it out up front for convenience.
$endgroup$
– Malice Vidrine
Jan 27 at 9:08
1
1
$begingroup$
Pretty sure it just rules out the trivial category, since any well-pointed categories with a zero object will be trivial. So no, I don't think there's any deep reason.
$endgroup$
– Malice Vidrine
Jan 27 at 7:42
$begingroup$
Pretty sure it just rules out the trivial category, since any well-pointed categories with a zero object will be trivial. So no, I don't think there's any deep reason.
$endgroup$
– Malice Vidrine
Jan 27 at 7:42
$begingroup$
(Actually there's probably even less reason to mention it in the case of toposes: a topos with a zero object is already trivial, so the lack of a zero object is usually assumed well before one gets to talking about well-pointedness.)
$endgroup$
– Malice Vidrine
Jan 27 at 7:46
$begingroup$
(Actually there's probably even less reason to mention it in the case of toposes: a topos with a zero object is already trivial, so the lack of a zero object is usually assumed well before one gets to talking about well-pointedness.)
$endgroup$
– Malice Vidrine
Jan 27 at 7:46
$begingroup$
And is there any reason to rule out the trivial category except for that it is not very useful?
$endgroup$
– NDewolf
Jan 27 at 8:58
$begingroup$
And is there any reason to rule out the trivial category except for that it is not very useful?
$endgroup$
– NDewolf
Jan 27 at 8:58
$begingroup$
Not really. It's one of those things where you'd write a lot of proofs that use phrases like "except for the trivial category" or "this is obviously satisfied in the trivial case, so consider any other case," unless you just rule it out up front for convenience.
$endgroup$
– Malice Vidrine
Jan 27 at 9:08
$begingroup$
Not really. It's one of those things where you'd write a lot of proofs that use phrases like "except for the trivial category" or "this is obviously satisfied in the trivial case, so consider any other case," unless you just rule it out up front for convenience.
$endgroup$
– Malice Vidrine
Jan 27 at 9:08
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Malice's comment is spot on: There are important theorems which only hold for well-pointed toposes if well-pointed is defined as it is.
One example for such a theorem is that the internal logic of the topos coincides with the external one (where we only speak about global elements). For the trivial topos (whose category consists of just one object), this equivalence fails quite hard, because in the internal logic of the trivial topos any statement whatsoever holds, including "$bot$" (falsity), which does not hold externally.
Your question is one of those where switching to a constructive metatheory yields some further insights. Namely, constructively, we need even more conditions (conditions which are classically always satisfied). Then it becomes obvious that "excluding the trivial topos" is actually a red herring.
More details on both points can be found over at the nLab.
answered Jan 28 at 12:20
Ingo BlechschmidtIngo Blechschmidt
1,420815
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3089237%2fwell-pointed-categories-vs-well-pointed-topoi%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Malice's comment is spot on: There are important theorems which only hold for well-pointed toposes if well-pointed is defined as it is.
One example for such a theorem is that the internal logic of the topos coincides with the external one (where we only speak about global elements). For the trivial topos (whose category consists of just one object), this equivalence fails quite hard, because in the internal logic of the trivial topos any statement whatsoever holds, including "$bot$" (falsity), which does not hold externally.
Your question is one of those where switching to a constructive metatheory yields some further insights. Namely, constructively, we need even more conditions (conditions which are classically always satisfied). Then it becomes obvious that "excluding the trivial topos" is actually a red herring.
More details on both points can be found over at the nLab.
answered Jan 28 at 12:20
Ingo BlechschmidtIngo Blechschmidt
1,420815
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Malice's comment is spot on: There are important theorems which only hold for well-pointed toposes if well-pointed is defined as it is.
One example for such a theorem is that the internal logic of the topos coincides with the external one (where we only speak about global elements). For the trivial topos (whose category consists of just one object), this equivalence fails quite hard, because in the internal logic of the trivial topos any statement whatsoever holds, including "$bot$" (falsity), which does not hold externally.
Your question is one of those where switching to a constructive metatheory yields some further insights. Namely, constructively, we need even more conditions (conditions which are classically always satisfied). Then it becomes obvious that "excluding the trivial topos" is actually a red herring.
More details on both points can be found over at the nLab.
answered Jan 28 at 12:20
Ingo BlechschmidtIngo Blechschmidt
1,420815
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Malice's comment is spot on: There are important theorems which only hold for well-pointed toposes if well-pointed is defined as it is.
One example for such a theorem is that the internal logic of the topos coincides with the external one (where we only speak about global elements). For the trivial topos (whose category consists of just one object), this equivalence fails quite hard, because in the internal logic of the trivial topos any statement whatsoever holds, including "$bot$" (falsity), which does not hold externally.
Your question is one of those where switching to a constructive metatheory yields some further insights. Namely, constructively, we need even more conditions (conditions which are classically always satisfied). Then it becomes obvious that "excluding the trivial topos" is actually a red herring.
More details on both points can be found over at the nLab.
answered Jan 28 at 12:20
Ingo BlechschmidtIngo Blechschmidt
1,420815
$endgroup$
Malice's comment is spot on: There are important theorems which only hold for well-pointed toposes if well-pointed is defined as it is.
One example for such a theorem is that the internal logic of the topos coincides with the external one (where we only speak about global elements). For the trivial topos (whose category consists of just one object), this equivalence fails quite hard, because in the internal logic of the trivial topos any statement whatsoever holds, including "$bot$" (falsity), which does not hold externally.
Your question is one of those where switching to a constructive metatheory yields some further insights. Namely, constructively, we need even more conditions (conditions which are classically always satisfied). Then it becomes obvious that "excluding the trivial topos" is actually a red herring.
More details on both points can be found over at the nLab.
answered Jan 28 at 12:20
Ingo BlechschmidtIngo Blechschmidt
1,420815
answered Jan 28 at 12:20
Ingo BlechschmidtIngo Blechschmidt
1,420815
answered Jan 28 at 12:20
Ingo BlechschmidtIngo Blechschmidt
1,420815
answered Jan 28 at 12:20
Ingo BlechschmidtIngo Blechschmidt
1,420815
1,420815
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3089237%2fwell-pointed-categories-vs-well-pointed-topoi%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
$begingroup$
Pretty sure it just rules out the trivial category, since any well-pointed categories with a zero object will be trivial. So no, I don't think there's any deep reason.
$endgroup$
– Malice Vidrine
Jan 27 at 7:42
$begingroup$
(Actually there's probably even less reason to mention it in the case of toposes: a topos with a zero object is already trivial, so the lack of a zero object is usually assumed well before one gets to talking about well-pointedness.)
$endgroup$
– Malice Vidrine
Jan 27 at 7:46
$begingroup$
And is there any reason to rule out the trivial category except for that it is not very useful?
$endgroup$
– NDewolf
Jan 27 at 8:58
$begingroup$
Not really. It's one of those things where you'd write a lot of proofs that use phrases like "except for the trivial category" or "this is obviously satisfied in the trivial case, so consider any other case," unless you just rule it out up front for convenience.
$endgroup$
– Malice Vidrine
Jan 27 at 9:08