DOCSLIB.ORG

What Is...A Topos?, Volume 51, Number 9

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
What Is...A Topos?, Volume 51, Number 9 ?WHAT IS... a Topos? Luc Illusie Basic Examples restriction maps with a family of sections si of E In the early 1960s Grothendieck chose the Greek on the Ui ’s which coincide on the intersections word topos (which means “place”) to denote a math- Ui ∩ Uj . Now, let C be a category having finite pro- ematical object that would provide a general frame- jective limits. To give a topology (sometimes called work for his theory of étale cohomology and other a Grothendieck topology) on C means to specify, variants related to his philosophy of descent. Even for each object U of C, families of maps (Ui → U)i∈I, if you do not know what a topos is, you have surely called covering families, enjoying properties anal- come across some of them. Here are two examples: ogous to those of open covers of an open subset (a) The category of sheaves of sets on a topo- of a topological space, such as stability under base logical space is a topos. In particular, the category change and composition (see [SGA 4 II 1.3] for a pre- of sets is a topos, for it is the category of sheaves cise definition). Once a topology has been chosen of sets on the one point space. This topos, denoted on C, C is called a site, and one can define a sheaf {pt}, is called the punctual topos. of sets on C in the same way as in the case in which (b) Let G be a group. The category BG of G-sets, C is the category of open subsets of a topological i. e., sets equipped with a left action of G, is a space: a sheaf of sets E on C is a contravariant func- topos. For G = {1}, BG = {pt}. tor U → E(U) on C (with values in the category of What these categories have in common is that (i) they behave very much like the category of sets, sets) having the property that for any covering → and (ii) they possess a good notion of localization. family (Ui U)i∈I, a section s of E on U, i. e., an In order to formalize (ii), Grothendieck conceived element of E(U), can be identified via the “restric- the idea of sheaf on a site, which generalizes the tion” maps with a family of sections si of E on the notion of sheaf on a topological space. That led him Ui ’s that coincide on the “intersections” Ui ×U Uj. to the notion of topos, which encompasses (i) and A topos T is a category equivalent to the cate- (ii). gory of sheaves of sets on a site C (which is then Sites and Toposes called a defining site for T). Here are some prop- Consider the category C of open subsets of a erties of toposes : topological space X (the morphisms being the in- (1) A topos T admits finite projective limits: in clusions of open subsets). A sheaf of sets E on X particular, it has a final object, and it admits fibered is a contravariant functor U → E(U) on C (with val- products. ues in the category of sets) having the property that (2) If (Ui)i∈I is a family of objects of T, the sum for any open cover (Ui)i∈I of U, a section s of E on i∈I Ui exists, is “disjoint”, and commutes with U, i. e., an element of E(U), can be identified via the base change. (3) Quotients by equivalence relations exist and Luc Illusie is professor of mathematics at the Université have the same good properties as in the category Paris-Sud. His email address is luc.illusie@math. of sets. u-psud.fr. The author wishes to thank P. Deligne, O. Gabber, A. Jackson, G. Laumon, W. Messing, A. Ogus, A theorem of Giraud [SGA 4 IV 1.2] asserts that and M. Raynaud for their help in the preparation of this the converse is essentially true. Namely, if T is a column. category satisfying (1), (2), (3), and if moreover T 1060 NOTICES OF THE AMS VOLUME 51, NUMBER 9 satisfies a certain technical “smallness” condition, admits enough injectives, and one can consider then T is a topos. the derived functor of Γ (T,−). This yields a com- Several unequivalent sites may give rise to the mon generalization of sheaf cohomology on topo- same topos, as the case of {pt} already shows : both logical spaces and group cohomology (the functor the one point space and the category of sets, Γ (BG,−) is “taking the invariants under G”). equipped with the topology defined by surjective Toposes Arising from Algebraic Geometry families, are defining sites. Grothendieck liked to The most important example, which was the compare this with the fact that a group can be de- main motivation for Grothendieck and which is fined by generators and relations in many differ- also the closest to geometric intuition, is the étale ent ways. The site is some kind of system of gen- topos of a scheme X. It is the topos of sheaves on erators and relations for the topos. And in the the étale site Xet of X. The underlying category of same way in which a group G can be defined by a Xet is the category of schemes Y étale over X (i. e., set of generators that is G itself, a topos T can be étale morphisms Y → X). Étale morphisms are the defined by a site whose underlying category is T analogs, in algebraic geometry, of morphisms of itself. Covering families are just epimorphic fam- complex analytic spaces that are analytically local ilies. This topology is called the canonical topology. isomorphisms. Covering families of Xet are sur- In the case of BG, the canonical topology is the jective families (Yi → Y )i∈I of (étale) X-schemes. topology defined by surjective families of G-maps. When X is the spectrum of a field k with absolute Morphisms, Points, Cohomology Galois group G, the étale topos of X is a variant of A continuous map of topological spaces BG, namely the category of (discrete) sets endowed ∗ f : X → Y defines a pair of adjoint functors (f ,f∗) with a continuous action of G; cohomology in this between the categories of sheaves of sets on X case is the Galois cohomology of k. It is a miracle and Y. The inverse image functor f ∗ commutes (as that the consideration of the cohomology of étale a left adjoint) with inductive limits. It also com- toposes with values in Z/n, with n prime to the mutes with finite projective limits. Now, if X, Y are characteristics, has given rise to a Weil cohomology toposes, one defines a morphism f : X → Y as a pair and, eventually, to the proof of the Weil conjectures, ∗ of adjoint functors (f : Y → X,f∗ : X → Y) such by Grothendieck and Deligne [D]. Variants of the that f ∗ commutes with finite projective limits. If étale topology, such as the so-called fppf topology, T is a topos, up to a unique isomorphism of func- play an important role in certain moduli problems tors, there is only one morphism from T to the (Hilbert and Picard schemes, etc.) and also in the punctual topos {pt}. On the other hand, a point of theory of group schemes and arithmetic applica- T is by definition a morphism from {pt} to T. If T tions. is defined by a topological space X, a (usual) point Another interesting example is the crystalline x of X defines a point of T, whose inverse image topos, constructed by Grothendieck and Berthelot, functor is the stalk functor E → Ex. But new phe- which is crucial in differential calculus and the nomena occur. Deligne has constructed examples study of de Rham cohomology in positive or mixed of toposes without points (he has also given crite- characteristic. The comparison between crystalline ria for the existence of “enough points”) [SGA 4 IV cohomology and p-adic étale cohomology, some- 7, VI 9]. Moreover, if x and y are points of a topos times called p-adic Hodge theory [P], is closely re- T, there may exist nontrivial morphisms (of func- lated to deep problems in arithmetic geometry. tors) from x to y. In the case of BG, for example, Finally, let me mention that, in the wake of pi- the forgetful functor from BG to {pt} is the inverse oneering work of Lawvere in the late 1960s, a vari- image functor by a point of BG, whose group of ant of the notion of topos, called elementary topos, automorphisms is G itself! This observation is at has been extensively used in logic for the past the root of Grothendieck’s theory of the funda- thirty years. mental group in algebraic geometry. If X is a topo- logical space and P is a G-torsor on X (i. e., a prin- References cipal G-cover of X), then twisting a G-set E by P (i. [SGA 4] Théorie des topos et cohomologie étale e., forming the corresponding fiber space with fiber des schémas, Séminaire de Géométrie Algébrique E over X) is the inverse image functor by a mor- du Bois-Marie 1963-64, dirigé par M. Artin, phism fP : X → BG, and P → fP establishes a bijec- A. Grothendieck, J.-L. Verdier, SLN 269, 270, 305, tive correspondence between isomorphism classes Springer-Verlag, 1972, 1973. of G-torsors on X and morphisms from X to BG. [D] P.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Derived Functors for Hom and Tensor Product: the Wrong Way to Do It
    Derived Functors for Hom and Tensor Product: The Wrong Way to do It UROP+ Final Paper, Summer 2018 Kevin Beuchot Mentor: Gurbir Dhillon Problem Proposed by: Gurbir Dhillon August 31, 2018 Abstract In this paper we study the properties of the wrong derived functors LHom and R ⊗. We will prove identities that relate these functors to the classical Ext and Tor. R With these results we will also prove that the functors LHom and ⊗ form an adjoint pair. Finally we will give some explicit examples of these functors using spectral sequences that relate them to Ext and Tor, and also show some vanishing theorems over some rings. 1 1 Introduction In this paper we will discuss derived functors. Derived functors have been used in homo- logical algebra as a tool to understand the lack of exactness of some important functors; two important examples are the derived functors of the functors Hom and Tensor Prod- uct (⊗). Their well known derived functors, whose cohomology groups are Ext and Tor, are their right and left derived functors respectively. In this paper we will work in the category R-mod of a commutative ring R (although most results are also true for non-commutative rings). In this category there are differ- ent ways to think of these derived functors. We will mainly focus in two interpretations. First, there is a way to concretely construct the groups that make a derived functor as a (co)homology. To do this we need to work in a category that has enough injectives or projectives, R-mod has both.
    [Show full text]
  • Categories of Sets with a Group Action
    Categories of sets with a group action Bachelor Thesis of Joris Weimar under supervision of Professor S.J. Edixhoven Mathematisch Instituut, Universiteit Leiden Leiden, 13 June 2008 Contents 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Abstract . .1 1.2 Working method . .1 1.2.1 Notation . .1 2 Categories 3 2.1 Basics . .3 2.1.1 Functors . .4 2.1.2 Natural transformations . .5 2.2 Categorical constructions . .6 2.2.1 Products and coproducts . .6 2.2.2 Fibered products and fibered coproducts . .9 3 An equivalence of categories 13 3.1 G-sets . 13 3.2 Covering spaces . 15 3.2.1 The fundamental group . 15 3.2.2 Covering spaces and the homotopy lifting property . 16 3.2.3 Induced homomorphisms . 18 3.2.4 Classifying covering spaces through the fundamental group . 19 3.3 The equivalence . 24 3.3.1 The functors . 25 4 Applications and examples 31 4.1 Automorphisms and recovering the fundamental group . 31 4.2 The Seifert-van Kampen theorem . 32 4.2.1 The categories C1, C2, and πP -Set ................... 33 4.2.2 The functors . 34 4.2.3 Example . 36 Bibliography 38 Index 40 iii 1 Introduction 1.1 Abstract In the 40s, Mac Lane and Eilenberg introduced categories. Although by some referred to as abstract nonsense, the idea of categories allows one to talk about mathematical objects and their relationions in a general setting. Its origins lie in the field of algebraic topology, one of the topics that will be explored in this thesis. First, a concise introduction to categories will be given.
    [Show full text]
  • Derived Categories. Winter 2008/09
    Derived categories. Winter 2008/09 Igor V. Dolgachev May 5, 2009 ii Contents 1 Derived categories 1 1.1 Abelian categories .......................... 1 1.2 Derived categories .......................... 9 1.3 Derived functors ........................... 24 1.4 Spectral sequences .......................... 38 1.5 Exercises ............................... 44 2 Derived McKay correspondence 47 2.1 Derived category of coherent sheaves ................ 47 2.2 Fourier-Mukai Transform ...................... 59 2.3 Equivariant derived categories .................... 75 2.4 The Bridgeland-King-Reid Theorem ................ 86 2.5 Exercises ............................... 100 3 Reconstruction Theorems 105 3.1 Bondal-Orlov Theorem ........................ 105 3.2 Spherical objects ........................... 113 3.3 Semi-orthogonal decomposition ................... 121 3.4 Tilting objects ............................ 128 3.5 Exercises ............................... 131 iii iv CONTENTS Lecture 1 Derived categories 1.1 Abelian categories We assume that the reader is familiar with the concepts of categories and func- tors. We will assume that all categories are small, i.e. the class of objects Ob(C) in a category C is a set. A small category can be defined by two sets Mor(C) and Ob(C) together with two maps s, t : Mor(C) → Ob(C) defined by the source and the target of a morphism. There is a section e : Ob(C) → Mor(C) for both maps defined by the identity morphism. We identify Ob(C) with its image under e. The composition of morphisms is a map c : Mor(C) ×s,t Mor(C) → Mor(C). There are obvious properties of the maps (s, t, e, c) expressing the axioms of associativity and the identity of a category. For any A, B ∈ Ob(C) we denote −1 −1 by MorC(A, B) the subset s (A) ∩ t (B) and we denote by idA the element e(A) ∈ MorC(A, A).
    [Show full text]
  • Sheaves and Homotopy Theory
    SHEAVES AND HOMOTOPY THEORY DANIEL DUGGER The purpose of this note is to describe the homotopy-theoretic version of sheaf theory developed in the work of Thomason [14] and Jardine [7, 8, 9]; a few enhancements are provided here and there, but the bulk of the material should be credited to them. Their work is the foundation from which Morel and Voevodsky build their homotopy theory for schemes [12], and it is our hope that this exposition will be useful to those striving to understand that material. Our motivating examples will center on these applications to algebraic geometry. Some history: The machinery in question was invented by Thomason as the main tool in his proof of the Lichtenbaum-Quillen conjecture for Bott-periodic algebraic K-theory. He termed his constructions `hypercohomology spectra', and a detailed examination of their basic properties can be found in the first section of [14]. Jardine later showed how these ideas can be elegantly rephrased in terms of model categories (cf. [8], [9]). In this setting the hypercohomology construction is just a certain fibrant replacement functor. His papers convincingly demonstrate how many questions concerning algebraic K-theory or ´etale homotopy theory can be most naturally understood using the model category language. In this paper we set ourselves the specific task of developing some kind of homotopy theory for schemes. The hope is to demonstrate how Thomason's and Jardine's machinery can be built, step-by-step, so that it is precisely what is needed to solve the problems we encounter. The papers mentioned above all assume a familiarity with Grothendieck topologies and sheaf theory, and proceed to develop the homotopy-theoretic situation as a generalization of the classical case.
    [Show full text]
  • 81151635.Pdf
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Elsevier - Publisher Connector Topology and its Applications 158 (2011) 2103–2110 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Topology and its Applications www.elsevier.com/locate/topol The higher derived functors of the primitive element functor of quasitoric manifolds ∗ David Allen a, , Jose La Luz b a Department of Mathematics, Iona College, New Rochelle, NY 10801, United States b Department of Mathematics, University of Puerto Rico in Bayamón, Industrial Minillas 170 Car 174, Bayamón 00959-1919, Puerto Rico article info abstract Article history: Let P be an n-dimensional, q 1 neighborly simple convex polytope and let M2n(λ) be the Received 15 June 2011 corresponding quasitoric manifold. The manifold depends on a particular map of lattices Accepted 20 June 2011 λ : Zm → Zn where m is the number of facets of P. In this note we use ESP-sequences in the sense of Larry Smith to show that the higher derived functors of the primitive element MSC: functor are independent of λ. Coupling this with results that appear in Bousfield (1970) primary 14M25 secondary 57N65 [3] we are able to enrich the library of nice homology coalgebras by showing that certain families of quasitoric manifolds are nice, at least rationally, from Bousfield’s perspective. © Keywords: 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Quasitoric manifolds Toric topology Higher homotopy groups Unstable homotopy theory Toric spaces Higher derived functors of the primitive element functor Nice homology coalgebras Torus actions Cosimplicial objects 1. Introduction Given an n-dimensional q 1 neighborly simple convex polytope P , there is a family of quasitoric manifolds M that sit over P .
    [Show full text]
  • Representations of Semisimple Lie Algebras in Prime Characteristic and the Noncommutative Springer Resolution
    Annals of Mathematics 178 (2013), 835{919 http://dx.doi.org/10.4007/annals.2013.178.3.2 Representations of semisimple Lie algebras in prime characteristic and the noncommutative Springer resolution By Roman Bezrukavnikov and Ivan Mirkovic´ To Joseph Bernstein with admiration and gratitude Abstract We prove most of Lusztig's conjectures on the canonical basis in homol- ogy of a Springer fiber. The conjectures predict that this basis controls numerics of representations of the Lie algebra of a semisimple algebraic group over an algebraically closed field of positive characteristic. We check this for almost all characteristics. To this end we construct a noncom- mutative resolution of the nilpotent cone which is derived equivalent to the Springer resolution. On the one hand, this noncommutative resolution is closely related to the positive characteristic derived localization equiva- lences obtained earlier by the present authors and Rumynin. On the other hand, it is compatible with the t-structure arising from an equivalence with the derived category of perverse sheaves on the affine flag variety of the Langlands dual group. This equivalence established by Arkhipov and the first author fits the framework of local geometric Langlands duality. The latter compatibility allows one to apply Frobenius purity theorem to deduce the desired properties of the basis. We expect the noncommutative counterpart of the Springer resolution to be of independent interest from the perspectives of algebraic geometry and geometric Langlands duality. Contents 0. Introduction 837 0.1. Notations and conventions 841 1. t-structures on cotangent bundles of flag varieties: statements and preliminaries 842 R.B.
    [Show full text]
  • A Category-Theoretic Approach to Representation and Analysis of Inconsistency in Graph-Based Viewpoints
    A Category-Theoretic Approach to Representation and Analysis of Inconsistency in Graph-Based Viewpoints by Mehrdad Sabetzadeh A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Science Graduate Department of Computer Science University of Toronto Copyright c 2003 by Mehrdad Sabetzadeh Abstract A Category-Theoretic Approach to Representation and Analysis of Inconsistency in Graph-Based Viewpoints Mehrdad Sabetzadeh Master of Science Graduate Department of Computer Science University of Toronto 2003 Eliciting the requirements for a proposed system typically involves different stakeholders with different expertise, responsibilities, and perspectives. This may result in inconsis- tencies between the descriptions provided by stakeholders. Viewpoints-based approaches have been proposed as a way to manage incomplete and inconsistent models gathered from multiple sources. In this thesis, we propose a category-theoretic framework for the analysis of fuzzy viewpoints. Informally, a fuzzy viewpoint is a graph in which the elements of a lattice are used to specify the amount of knowledge available about the details of nodes and edges. By defining an appropriate notion of morphism between fuzzy viewpoints, we construct categories of fuzzy viewpoints and prove that these categories are (finitely) cocomplete. We then show how colimits can be employed to merge the viewpoints and detect the inconsistencies that arise independent of any particular choice of viewpoint semantics. Taking advantage of the same category-theoretic techniques used in defining fuzzy viewpoints, we will also introduce a more general graph-based formalism that may find applications in other contexts. ii To my mother and father with love and gratitude. Acknowledgements First of all, I wish to thank my supervisor Steve Easterbrook for his guidance, support, and patience.
    [Show full text]
  • Notes and Solutions to Exercises for Mac Lane's Categories for The
    Stefan Dawydiak Version 0.3 July 2, 2020 Notes and Exercises from Categories for the Working Mathematician Contents 0 Preface 2 1 Categories, Functors, and Natural Transformations 2 1.1 Functors . .2 1.2 Natural Transformations . .4 1.3 Monics, Epis, and Zeros . .5 2 Constructions on Categories 6 2.1 Products of Categories . .6 2.2 Functor categories . .6 2.2.1 The Interchange Law . .8 2.3 The Category of All Categories . .8 2.4 Comma Categories . 11 2.5 Graphs and Free Categories . 12 2.6 Quotient Categories . 13 3 Universals and Limits 13 3.1 Universal Arrows . 13 3.2 The Yoneda Lemma . 14 3.2.1 Proof of the Yoneda Lemma . 14 3.3 Coproducts and Colimits . 16 3.4 Products and Limits . 18 3.4.1 The p-adic integers . 20 3.5 Categories with Finite Products . 21 3.6 Groups in Categories . 22 4 Adjoints 23 4.1 Adjunctions . 23 4.2 Examples of Adjoints . 24 4.3 Reflective Subcategories . 28 4.4 Equivalence of Categories . 30 4.5 Adjoints for Preorders . 32 4.5.1 Examples of Galois Connections . 32 4.6 Cartesian Closed Categories . 33 5 Limits 33 5.1 Creation of Limits . 33 5.2 Limits by Products and Equalizers . 34 5.3 Preservation of Limits . 35 5.4 Adjoints on Limits . 35 5.5 Freyd's adjoint functor theorem . 36 1 6 Chapter 6 38 7 Chapter 7 38 8 Abelian Categories 38 8.1 Additive Categories . 38 8.2 Abelian Categories . 38 8.3 Diagram Lemmas . 39 9 Special Limits 41 9.1 Interchange of Limits .
    [Show full text]
  • Derived Functors and Homological Dimension (Pdf)
    DERIVED FUNCTORS AND HOMOLOGICAL DIMENSION George Torres Math 221 Abstract. This paper overviews the basic notions of abelian categories, exact functors, and chain complexes. It will use these concepts to define derived functors, prove their existence, and demon- strate their relationship to homological dimension. I affirm my awareness of the standards of the Harvard College Honor Code. Date: December 15, 2015. 1 2 DERIVED FUNCTORS AND HOMOLOGICAL DIMENSION 1. Abelian Categories and Homology The concept of an abelian category will be necessary for discussing ideas on homological algebra. Loosely speaking, an abelian cagetory is a type of category that behaves like modules (R-mod) or abelian groups (Ab). We must first define a few types of morphisms that such a category must have. Definition 1.1. A morphism f : X ! Y in a category C is a zero morphism if: • for any A 2 C and any g; h : A ! X, fg = fh • for any B 2 C and any g; h : Y ! B, gf = hf We denote a zero morphism as 0XY (or sometimes just 0 if the context is sufficient). Definition 1.2. A morphism f : X ! Y is a monomorphism if it is left cancellative. That is, for all g; h : Z ! X, we have fg = fh ) g = h. An epimorphism is a morphism if it is right cancellative. The zero morphism is a generalization of the zero map on rings, or the identity homomorphism on groups. Monomorphisms and epimorphisms are generalizations of injective and surjective homomorphisms (though these definitions don't always coincide). It can be shown that a morphism is an isomorphism iff it is epic and monic.
    [Show full text]
  • Generalized Inverse Limits and Topological Entropy
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Repository of Faculty of Science, University of Zagreb FACULTY OF SCIENCE DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS Goran Erceg GENERALIZED INVERSE LIMITS AND TOPOLOGICAL ENTROPY DOCTORAL THESIS Zagreb, 2016 PRIRODOSLOVNO - MATEMATICKIˇ FAKULTET MATEMATICKIˇ ODSJEK Goran Erceg GENERALIZIRANI INVERZNI LIMESI I TOPOLOŠKA ENTROPIJA DOKTORSKI RAD Zagreb, 2016. FACULTY OF SCIENCE DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS Goran Erceg GENERALIZED INVERSE LIMITS AND TOPOLOGICAL ENTROPY DOCTORAL THESIS Supervisors: prof. Judy Kennedy prof. dr. sc. Vlasta Matijevic´ Zagreb, 2016 PRIRODOSLOVNO - MATEMATICKIˇ FAKULTET MATEMATICKIˇ ODSJEK Goran Erceg GENERALIZIRANI INVERZNI LIMESI I TOPOLOŠKA ENTROPIJA DOKTORSKI RAD Mentori: prof. Judy Kennedy prof. dr. sc. Vlasta Matijevic´ Zagreb, 2016. Acknowledgements First of all, i want to thank my supervisor professor Judy Kennedy for accept- ing a big responsibility of guiding a transatlantic student. Her enthusiasm and love for mathematics are contagious. I thank professor Vlasta Matijevi´c, not only my supervisor but also my role model as a professor of mathematics. It was privilege to be guided by her for master's and doctoral thesis. I want to thank all my math teachers, from elementary school onwards, who helped that my love for math rises more and more with each year. Special thanks to Jurica Cudina´ who showed me a glimpse of math theory already in the high school. I thank all members of the Topology seminar in Split who always knew to ask right questions at the right moment and to guide me in the right direction. I also thank Iztok Baniˇcand the rest of the Topology seminar in Maribor who welcomed me as their member and showed me the beauty of a teamwork.
    [Show full text]
  • Categorical Semantics of Constructive Set Theory
    Categorical semantics of constructive set theory Beim Fachbereich Mathematik der Technischen Universit¨atDarmstadt eingereichte Habilitationsschrift von Benno van den Berg, PhD aus Emmen, die Niederlande 2 Contents 1 Introduction to the thesis 7 1.1 Logic and metamathematics . 7 1.2 Historical intermezzo . 8 1.3 Constructivity . 9 1.4 Constructive set theory . 11 1.5 Algebraic set theory . 15 1.6 Contents . 17 1.7 Warning concerning terminology . 18 1.8 Acknowledgements . 19 2 A unified approach to algebraic set theory 21 2.1 Introduction . 21 2.2 Constructive set theories . 24 2.3 Categories with small maps . 25 2.3.1 Axioms . 25 2.3.2 Consequences . 29 2.3.3 Strengthenings . 31 2.3.4 Relation to other settings . 32 2.4 Models of set theory . 33 2.5 Examples . 35 2.6 Predicative sheaf theory . 36 2.7 Predicative realizability . 37 3 Exact completion 41 3.1 Introduction . 41 3 4 CONTENTS 3.2 Categories with small maps . 45 3.2.1 Classes of small maps . 46 3.2.2 Classes of display maps . 51 3.3 Axioms for classes of small maps . 55 3.3.1 Representability . 55 3.3.2 Separation . 55 3.3.3 Power types . 55 3.3.4 Function types . 57 3.3.5 Inductive types . 58 3.3.6 Infinity . 60 3.3.7 Fullness . 61 3.4 Exactness and its applications . 63 3.5 Exact completion . 66 3.6 Stability properties of axioms for small maps . 73 3.6.1 Representability . 74 3.6.2 Separation . 74 3.6.3 Power types .
    [Show full text]
  • Topos Theory
    Topos Theory Olivia Caramello Sheaves on a site Grothendieck topologies Grothendieck toposes Basic properties of Grothendieck toposes Subobject lattices Topos Theory Balancedness The epi-mono factorization Lectures 7-14: Sheaves on a site The closure operation on subobjects Monomorphisms and epimorphisms Exponentials Olivia Caramello The subobject classifier Local operators For further reading Topos Theory Sieves Olivia Caramello In order to ‘categorify’ the notion of sheaf of a topological space, Sheaves on a site Grothendieck the first step is to introduce an abstract notion of covering (of an topologies Grothendieck object by a family of arrows to it) in a category. toposes Basic properties Definition of Grothendieck toposes Subobject lattices • Given a category C and an object c 2 Ob(C), a presieve P in Balancedness C on c is a collection of arrows in C with codomain c. The epi-mono factorization The closure • Given a category C and an object c 2 Ob(C), a sieve S in C operation on subobjects on c is a collection of arrows in C with codomain c such that Monomorphisms and epimorphisms Exponentials The subobject f 2 S ) f ◦ g 2 S classifier Local operators whenever this composition makes sense. For further reading • We say that a sieve S is generated by a presieve P on an object c if it is the smallest sieve containing it, that is if it is the collection of arrows to c which factor through an arrow in P. If S is a sieve on c and h : d ! c is any arrow to c, then h∗(S) := fg | cod(g) = d; h ◦ g 2 Sg is a sieve on d.
    [Show full text]