« first day (2524 days earlier)      last day (879 days later) » 

9:38 AM
Hi. https://cgp.ibs.re.kr/~chough/chough_toptypes.pdf

Definition 2.3.5, bottom of page 11.

Let $\mathfrak{X}$ be a category fibred in groupoids over $\mathcal{C}$. Let $\mathcal{C}/\mathfrak{X}$ denote the category whose objects are pairs $(U,u)$, where $U\in\mathcal{C}$ and $u:U\to\mathfrak{X}$ is a morphism of fibred categories over $\mathcal{C}$ and whose morphisms $(V,v)\to (U,u)$ are pairs $(f,f^b)$ where $f:V\to U$ is a morphism in $\mathcal{C}$ and $f^b:u\to u\circ f$ is a $2$-morphism of functors.
(By the above, I mean to ask, what fibred category do they intend, when they write $U\to\mathfrak{X}$)
 
10:24 AM
@Απών Presumably they mean $\mathcal{C}_{/U}$, identified with $U$ via the Yoneda embedding from $\mathcal{C}$ to categories fibered in groupoids (in fact sets) over $\mathcal{C}$
I agree that the notation is a bit confusing in this context, although suppressing the Yoneda embedding is extremely common
 
 
6 hours later…
4:49 PM
Why are the inverse image part of geometric morphisms required to preserve final objects? It is completely reasonable that they preserve pull-backs; they already preserve colimits, and these are the two pieces of structure needed to talk about descent (in the sense of Rezk). As any functor which preserves pull-backs and final objects preserves finite limits, I wonder what desiderata in topos theory stop holding if we drop the requirement that inverse image preserve final objects.
I should maybe add, that I have definitely already proved stuff using this property... it's just that this property seemed mostly convenient rather than interacting in some canonical way with fundamental properties of toposes.
 
 
2 hours later…
7:15 PM
@AdrianClough you are essentially asking why X_{/U}-->X is not a geometric morphism right? I think these morphisms certainly make sense and also very much considered in HTT, so I guess it is more of a notational convension. I mean it seem to make perfect sense to talk about the category of topoi with morphisms generated by geometric and etale ones i think.
 
7:30 PM
@AdrianClough This might be a cop out, but without that condition the embedding of (sober) topological spaces is not fully faithful anymore...
 
 
2 hours later…
9:20 PM
Hey y'all, so in Lemma 5.2.2.29 of HA, Lurie says that Mod_A^{Ass}(C), for A an associative algebra, and C a monoidal ∞-category, is a monoidal category. But we can't generally assume this unless C has the property that its tensor product preserves geometric realizations right?
Someone asked me this question and I can't see any way to fix it other than to assume Lurie just forgot to write in that assumption. I don't know if this affects anything else down the line.
 

« first day (2524 days earlier)      last day (879 days later) »