Comparisons of convenient categories for algebraic topology











up vote
11
down vote

favorite
2












I've heard that there are many convenient categories for algebraic topology. Such categories often have many nice properties like being cartesian closed, complete, cocomplete, the forgetful functor creates limits, containing all "nice" spaces like CW complexes and topological manifolds, et cetera. But the only convenient category for algebraic topologies that I know are the category of compact generated weakly Hausdorff (CGWH) spaces. Can someone briefly summarize other such categories and their advantages and disadvantages when compared to the category of CGWH spaces?










share|cite|improve this question




























    up vote
    11
    down vote

    favorite
    2












    I've heard that there are many convenient categories for algebraic topology. Such categories often have many nice properties like being cartesian closed, complete, cocomplete, the forgetful functor creates limits, containing all "nice" spaces like CW complexes and topological manifolds, et cetera. But the only convenient category for algebraic topologies that I know are the category of compact generated weakly Hausdorff (CGWH) spaces. Can someone briefly summarize other such categories and their advantages and disadvantages when compared to the category of CGWH spaces?










    share|cite|improve this question


























      up vote
      11
      down vote

      favorite
      2









      up vote
      11
      down vote

      favorite
      2






      2





      I've heard that there are many convenient categories for algebraic topology. Such categories often have many nice properties like being cartesian closed, complete, cocomplete, the forgetful functor creates limits, containing all "nice" spaces like CW complexes and topological manifolds, et cetera. But the only convenient category for algebraic topologies that I know are the category of compact generated weakly Hausdorff (CGWH) spaces. Can someone briefly summarize other such categories and their advantages and disadvantages when compared to the category of CGWH spaces?










      share|cite|improve this question















      I've heard that there are many convenient categories for algebraic topology. Such categories often have many nice properties like being cartesian closed, complete, cocomplete, the forgetful functor creates limits, containing all "nice" spaces like CW complexes and topological manifolds, et cetera. But the only convenient category for algebraic topologies that I know are the category of compact generated weakly Hausdorff (CGWH) spaces. Can someone briefly summarize other such categories and their advantages and disadvantages when compared to the category of CGWH spaces?







      at.algebraic-topology ct.category-theory






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Dec 6 at 0:42









      Goldstern

      11.1k13260




      11.1k13260










      asked Dec 6 at 0:03









      Rick Sternbach

      3119




      3119






















          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          14
          down vote













          From the nLab (although I was the author of these words):




          A reasonably large class of examples, including the examples of compactly generated spaces and sequential spaces, is given in the article by Escardó, Lawson, and Simpson (ref). These may be outlined as follows. An exponentiable space in $Top$ is a space $X$ such that $X times -: Top to Top$ has a right adjoint. These may be described concretely as core-compact spaces (spaces whose topology is a [[continuous lattice]]). Suppose given a collection $mathcal{C}$ of core-compact spaces, with the property that the product of any two spaces in $mathcal{C}$ is a colimit in $Top$ of spaces in $mathcal{C}$. Such a collection $mathcal{C}$ is called productive. Spaces which are $Top$-colimits of spaces in $mathcal{C}$ are called $mathcal{C}$-generated.



          Theorem (Escardó, Lawson, Simpson): If $mathcal{C}$ is a productive class, then the full subcategory of $Top$ whose objects are $mathcal{C}$-generated is a coreflective subcategory of $Top$ (hence complete and cocomplete) that is cartesian closed.



          Other convenience conditions, such as inclusion of CW-complexes and closure under closed subspaces, are in practice usually satisfied as well. For example, if closed subspaces of objects of $mathcal{C}$ are $mathcal{C}$-generated, then closed subspaces of $mathcal{C}$-generated spaces are also $mathcal{C}$-generated. If the unit interval $I$ is $mathcal{C}$-generated, then so are all CW-complexes.




          A number of examples are scattered throughout the paper.






          share|cite|improve this answer

















          • 2




            See also Booth, P.I. and Tillotson, J. Monoidal closed categories and convenient categories of topological spaces Pacific J. Math. {88} (1980) 33--53.
            – Ronnie Brown
            Dec 6 at 12:39












          • Freely-available pdf link for Booth–Tillotson: msp.org/pjm/1980/88-1/pjm-v88-n1-p03-s.pdf
            – David Roberts
            Dec 7 at 20:33


















          up vote
          7
          down vote













          If you want a convenient category of pointed spaces, then the category $mathbf{NG}_0$ of pointed numerically generated spaces, discussed for instance in




          Kazuhisa Shimakawa, Kohei Yoshida, Tadayuki Haraguchi, Homology and cohomology via enriched bifunctors Kyushu Journal of Mathematics, 2018, Volume 72, Issue 2, Pages 239-252, doi:10.2206/kyushujm.72.239




          is one. The authors say that numerically generated is equivalent to being $Delta$-generated, as discussed in Dan Dugger's Notes on Delta-generated spaces.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • An important advantage of $Delta$-generated spaces -- shared with sequential spaces, or any full subcategory of $Top$ which is the colimit-closure of a small subcategory (a la Todd's response) is that they are locally presentable, which simplifies certain infinitary constructions like the small object argument.
            – Tim Campion
            Dec 7 at 18:15


















          up vote
          4
          down vote













          One property that one sometimes wants, but which is not satisfied by most of the "usual" convenient categories, is that of being locally cartesian closed, or equivalently that each pullback functor $f^* : mathcal{C}/Y to mathcal{C}/X$ has a right adjoint $f_*$.



          However, I don't know of any nontrivial subcategory of the usual category $mathrm{Top}$ of topological spaces that is locally cartesian closed. The closest locally cartesian closed categories to $mathrm{Top}$ that I know of are quasitoposes, such as the category of subsequential spaces (which contains the category of sequential spaces mentioned by Todd, and is locally presentable) or pseudotopological spaces (which contains the entire category $mathrm{Top}$, but is not locally presentable).



          Another approach, used by May and Sigurdsson, is to mix two convenient categories to approximate local cartesian closure. As explained in their book, if $mathcal{K}$ denotes the category of not-necessarily-weak-Hausdorff $k$-spaces, then the pullback functor $f^*:mathcal{K}/Yto mathcal{K}/X$ has a right adjoint as long as $X$ and $Y$ are weak Hausdorff.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















            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: "504"
            };
            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
            });


            }
            });














            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f317004%2fcomparisons-of-convenient-categories-for-algebraic-topology%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            3 Answers
            3






            active

            oldest

            votes








            3 Answers
            3






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes








            up vote
            14
            down vote













            From the nLab (although I was the author of these words):




            A reasonably large class of examples, including the examples of compactly generated spaces and sequential spaces, is given in the article by Escardó, Lawson, and Simpson (ref). These may be outlined as follows. An exponentiable space in $Top$ is a space $X$ such that $X times -: Top to Top$ has a right adjoint. These may be described concretely as core-compact spaces (spaces whose topology is a [[continuous lattice]]). Suppose given a collection $mathcal{C}$ of core-compact spaces, with the property that the product of any two spaces in $mathcal{C}$ is a colimit in $Top$ of spaces in $mathcal{C}$. Such a collection $mathcal{C}$ is called productive. Spaces which are $Top$-colimits of spaces in $mathcal{C}$ are called $mathcal{C}$-generated.



            Theorem (Escardó, Lawson, Simpson): If $mathcal{C}$ is a productive class, then the full subcategory of $Top$ whose objects are $mathcal{C}$-generated is a coreflective subcategory of $Top$ (hence complete and cocomplete) that is cartesian closed.



            Other convenience conditions, such as inclusion of CW-complexes and closure under closed subspaces, are in practice usually satisfied as well. For example, if closed subspaces of objects of $mathcal{C}$ are $mathcal{C}$-generated, then closed subspaces of $mathcal{C}$-generated spaces are also $mathcal{C}$-generated. If the unit interval $I$ is $mathcal{C}$-generated, then so are all CW-complexes.




            A number of examples are scattered throughout the paper.






            share|cite|improve this answer

















            • 2




              See also Booth, P.I. and Tillotson, J. Monoidal closed categories and convenient categories of topological spaces Pacific J. Math. {88} (1980) 33--53.
              – Ronnie Brown
              Dec 6 at 12:39












            • Freely-available pdf link for Booth–Tillotson: msp.org/pjm/1980/88-1/pjm-v88-n1-p03-s.pdf
              – David Roberts
              Dec 7 at 20:33















            up vote
            14
            down vote













            From the nLab (although I was the author of these words):




            A reasonably large class of examples, including the examples of compactly generated spaces and sequential spaces, is given in the article by Escardó, Lawson, and Simpson (ref). These may be outlined as follows. An exponentiable space in $Top$ is a space $X$ such that $X times -: Top to Top$ has a right adjoint. These may be described concretely as core-compact spaces (spaces whose topology is a [[continuous lattice]]). Suppose given a collection $mathcal{C}$ of core-compact spaces, with the property that the product of any two spaces in $mathcal{C}$ is a colimit in $Top$ of spaces in $mathcal{C}$. Such a collection $mathcal{C}$ is called productive. Spaces which are $Top$-colimits of spaces in $mathcal{C}$ are called $mathcal{C}$-generated.



            Theorem (Escardó, Lawson, Simpson): If $mathcal{C}$ is a productive class, then the full subcategory of $Top$ whose objects are $mathcal{C}$-generated is a coreflective subcategory of $Top$ (hence complete and cocomplete) that is cartesian closed.



            Other convenience conditions, such as inclusion of CW-complexes and closure under closed subspaces, are in practice usually satisfied as well. For example, if closed subspaces of objects of $mathcal{C}$ are $mathcal{C}$-generated, then closed subspaces of $mathcal{C}$-generated spaces are also $mathcal{C}$-generated. If the unit interval $I$ is $mathcal{C}$-generated, then so are all CW-complexes.




            A number of examples are scattered throughout the paper.






            share|cite|improve this answer

















            • 2




              See also Booth, P.I. and Tillotson, J. Monoidal closed categories and convenient categories of topological spaces Pacific J. Math. {88} (1980) 33--53.
              – Ronnie Brown
              Dec 6 at 12:39












            • Freely-available pdf link for Booth–Tillotson: msp.org/pjm/1980/88-1/pjm-v88-n1-p03-s.pdf
              – David Roberts
              Dec 7 at 20:33













            up vote
            14
            down vote










            up vote
            14
            down vote









            From the nLab (although I was the author of these words):




            A reasonably large class of examples, including the examples of compactly generated spaces and sequential spaces, is given in the article by Escardó, Lawson, and Simpson (ref). These may be outlined as follows. An exponentiable space in $Top$ is a space $X$ such that $X times -: Top to Top$ has a right adjoint. These may be described concretely as core-compact spaces (spaces whose topology is a [[continuous lattice]]). Suppose given a collection $mathcal{C}$ of core-compact spaces, with the property that the product of any two spaces in $mathcal{C}$ is a colimit in $Top$ of spaces in $mathcal{C}$. Such a collection $mathcal{C}$ is called productive. Spaces which are $Top$-colimits of spaces in $mathcal{C}$ are called $mathcal{C}$-generated.



            Theorem (Escardó, Lawson, Simpson): If $mathcal{C}$ is a productive class, then the full subcategory of $Top$ whose objects are $mathcal{C}$-generated is a coreflective subcategory of $Top$ (hence complete and cocomplete) that is cartesian closed.



            Other convenience conditions, such as inclusion of CW-complexes and closure under closed subspaces, are in practice usually satisfied as well. For example, if closed subspaces of objects of $mathcal{C}$ are $mathcal{C}$-generated, then closed subspaces of $mathcal{C}$-generated spaces are also $mathcal{C}$-generated. If the unit interval $I$ is $mathcal{C}$-generated, then so are all CW-complexes.




            A number of examples are scattered throughout the paper.






            share|cite|improve this answer












            From the nLab (although I was the author of these words):




            A reasonably large class of examples, including the examples of compactly generated spaces and sequential spaces, is given in the article by Escardó, Lawson, and Simpson (ref). These may be outlined as follows. An exponentiable space in $Top$ is a space $X$ such that $X times -: Top to Top$ has a right adjoint. These may be described concretely as core-compact spaces (spaces whose topology is a [[continuous lattice]]). Suppose given a collection $mathcal{C}$ of core-compact spaces, with the property that the product of any two spaces in $mathcal{C}$ is a colimit in $Top$ of spaces in $mathcal{C}$. Such a collection $mathcal{C}$ is called productive. Spaces which are $Top$-colimits of spaces in $mathcal{C}$ are called $mathcal{C}$-generated.



            Theorem (Escardó, Lawson, Simpson): If $mathcal{C}$ is a productive class, then the full subcategory of $Top$ whose objects are $mathcal{C}$-generated is a coreflective subcategory of $Top$ (hence complete and cocomplete) that is cartesian closed.



            Other convenience conditions, such as inclusion of CW-complexes and closure under closed subspaces, are in practice usually satisfied as well. For example, if closed subspaces of objects of $mathcal{C}$ are $mathcal{C}$-generated, then closed subspaces of $mathcal{C}$-generated spaces are also $mathcal{C}$-generated. If the unit interval $I$ is $mathcal{C}$-generated, then so are all CW-complexes.




            A number of examples are scattered throughout the paper.







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            answered Dec 6 at 1:07









            Todd Trimble

            43.4k5156257




            43.4k5156257








            • 2




              See also Booth, P.I. and Tillotson, J. Monoidal closed categories and convenient categories of topological spaces Pacific J. Math. {88} (1980) 33--53.
              – Ronnie Brown
              Dec 6 at 12:39












            • Freely-available pdf link for Booth–Tillotson: msp.org/pjm/1980/88-1/pjm-v88-n1-p03-s.pdf
              – David Roberts
              Dec 7 at 20:33














            • 2




              See also Booth, P.I. and Tillotson, J. Monoidal closed categories and convenient categories of topological spaces Pacific J. Math. {88} (1980) 33--53.
              – Ronnie Brown
              Dec 6 at 12:39












            • Freely-available pdf link for Booth–Tillotson: msp.org/pjm/1980/88-1/pjm-v88-n1-p03-s.pdf
              – David Roberts
              Dec 7 at 20:33








            2




            2




            See also Booth, P.I. and Tillotson, J. Monoidal closed categories and convenient categories of topological spaces Pacific J. Math. {88} (1980) 33--53.
            – Ronnie Brown
            Dec 6 at 12:39






            See also Booth, P.I. and Tillotson, J. Monoidal closed categories and convenient categories of topological spaces Pacific J. Math. {88} (1980) 33--53.
            – Ronnie Brown
            Dec 6 at 12:39














            Freely-available pdf link for Booth–Tillotson: msp.org/pjm/1980/88-1/pjm-v88-n1-p03-s.pdf
            – David Roberts
            Dec 7 at 20:33




            Freely-available pdf link for Booth–Tillotson: msp.org/pjm/1980/88-1/pjm-v88-n1-p03-s.pdf
            – David Roberts
            Dec 7 at 20:33










            up vote
            7
            down vote













            If you want a convenient category of pointed spaces, then the category $mathbf{NG}_0$ of pointed numerically generated spaces, discussed for instance in




            Kazuhisa Shimakawa, Kohei Yoshida, Tadayuki Haraguchi, Homology and cohomology via enriched bifunctors Kyushu Journal of Mathematics, 2018, Volume 72, Issue 2, Pages 239-252, doi:10.2206/kyushujm.72.239




            is one. The authors say that numerically generated is equivalent to being $Delta$-generated, as discussed in Dan Dugger's Notes on Delta-generated spaces.






            share|cite|improve this answer





















            • An important advantage of $Delta$-generated spaces -- shared with sequential spaces, or any full subcategory of $Top$ which is the colimit-closure of a small subcategory (a la Todd's response) is that they are locally presentable, which simplifies certain infinitary constructions like the small object argument.
              – Tim Campion
              Dec 7 at 18:15















            up vote
            7
            down vote













            If you want a convenient category of pointed spaces, then the category $mathbf{NG}_0$ of pointed numerically generated spaces, discussed for instance in




            Kazuhisa Shimakawa, Kohei Yoshida, Tadayuki Haraguchi, Homology and cohomology via enriched bifunctors Kyushu Journal of Mathematics, 2018, Volume 72, Issue 2, Pages 239-252, doi:10.2206/kyushujm.72.239




            is one. The authors say that numerically generated is equivalent to being $Delta$-generated, as discussed in Dan Dugger's Notes on Delta-generated spaces.






            share|cite|improve this answer





















            • An important advantage of $Delta$-generated spaces -- shared with sequential spaces, or any full subcategory of $Top$ which is the colimit-closure of a small subcategory (a la Todd's response) is that they are locally presentable, which simplifies certain infinitary constructions like the small object argument.
              – Tim Campion
              Dec 7 at 18:15













            up vote
            7
            down vote










            up vote
            7
            down vote









            If you want a convenient category of pointed spaces, then the category $mathbf{NG}_0$ of pointed numerically generated spaces, discussed for instance in




            Kazuhisa Shimakawa, Kohei Yoshida, Tadayuki Haraguchi, Homology and cohomology via enriched bifunctors Kyushu Journal of Mathematics, 2018, Volume 72, Issue 2, Pages 239-252, doi:10.2206/kyushujm.72.239




            is one. The authors say that numerically generated is equivalent to being $Delta$-generated, as discussed in Dan Dugger's Notes on Delta-generated spaces.






            share|cite|improve this answer












            If you want a convenient category of pointed spaces, then the category $mathbf{NG}_0$ of pointed numerically generated spaces, discussed for instance in




            Kazuhisa Shimakawa, Kohei Yoshida, Tadayuki Haraguchi, Homology and cohomology via enriched bifunctors Kyushu Journal of Mathematics, 2018, Volume 72, Issue 2, Pages 239-252, doi:10.2206/kyushujm.72.239




            is one. The authors say that numerically generated is equivalent to being $Delta$-generated, as discussed in Dan Dugger's Notes on Delta-generated spaces.







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            answered Dec 6 at 0:42









            David Roberts

            16.7k462174




            16.7k462174












            • An important advantage of $Delta$-generated spaces -- shared with sequential spaces, or any full subcategory of $Top$ which is the colimit-closure of a small subcategory (a la Todd's response) is that they are locally presentable, which simplifies certain infinitary constructions like the small object argument.
              – Tim Campion
              Dec 7 at 18:15


















            • An important advantage of $Delta$-generated spaces -- shared with sequential spaces, or any full subcategory of $Top$ which is the colimit-closure of a small subcategory (a la Todd's response) is that they are locally presentable, which simplifies certain infinitary constructions like the small object argument.
              – Tim Campion
              Dec 7 at 18:15
















            An important advantage of $Delta$-generated spaces -- shared with sequential spaces, or any full subcategory of $Top$ which is the colimit-closure of a small subcategory (a la Todd's response) is that they are locally presentable, which simplifies certain infinitary constructions like the small object argument.
            – Tim Campion
            Dec 7 at 18:15




            An important advantage of $Delta$-generated spaces -- shared with sequential spaces, or any full subcategory of $Top$ which is the colimit-closure of a small subcategory (a la Todd's response) is that they are locally presentable, which simplifies certain infinitary constructions like the small object argument.
            – Tim Campion
            Dec 7 at 18:15










            up vote
            4
            down vote













            One property that one sometimes wants, but which is not satisfied by most of the "usual" convenient categories, is that of being locally cartesian closed, or equivalently that each pullback functor $f^* : mathcal{C}/Y to mathcal{C}/X$ has a right adjoint $f_*$.



            However, I don't know of any nontrivial subcategory of the usual category $mathrm{Top}$ of topological spaces that is locally cartesian closed. The closest locally cartesian closed categories to $mathrm{Top}$ that I know of are quasitoposes, such as the category of subsequential spaces (which contains the category of sequential spaces mentioned by Todd, and is locally presentable) or pseudotopological spaces (which contains the entire category $mathrm{Top}$, but is not locally presentable).



            Another approach, used by May and Sigurdsson, is to mix two convenient categories to approximate local cartesian closure. As explained in their book, if $mathcal{K}$ denotes the category of not-necessarily-weak-Hausdorff $k$-spaces, then the pullback functor $f^*:mathcal{K}/Yto mathcal{K}/X$ has a right adjoint as long as $X$ and $Y$ are weak Hausdorff.






            share|cite|improve this answer

























              up vote
              4
              down vote













              One property that one sometimes wants, but which is not satisfied by most of the "usual" convenient categories, is that of being locally cartesian closed, or equivalently that each pullback functor $f^* : mathcal{C}/Y to mathcal{C}/X$ has a right adjoint $f_*$.



              However, I don't know of any nontrivial subcategory of the usual category $mathrm{Top}$ of topological spaces that is locally cartesian closed. The closest locally cartesian closed categories to $mathrm{Top}$ that I know of are quasitoposes, such as the category of subsequential spaces (which contains the category of sequential spaces mentioned by Todd, and is locally presentable) or pseudotopological spaces (which contains the entire category $mathrm{Top}$, but is not locally presentable).



              Another approach, used by May and Sigurdsson, is to mix two convenient categories to approximate local cartesian closure. As explained in their book, if $mathcal{K}$ denotes the category of not-necessarily-weak-Hausdorff $k$-spaces, then the pullback functor $f^*:mathcal{K}/Yto mathcal{K}/X$ has a right adjoint as long as $X$ and $Y$ are weak Hausdorff.






              share|cite|improve this answer























                up vote
                4
                down vote










                up vote
                4
                down vote









                One property that one sometimes wants, but which is not satisfied by most of the "usual" convenient categories, is that of being locally cartesian closed, or equivalently that each pullback functor $f^* : mathcal{C}/Y to mathcal{C}/X$ has a right adjoint $f_*$.



                However, I don't know of any nontrivial subcategory of the usual category $mathrm{Top}$ of topological spaces that is locally cartesian closed. The closest locally cartesian closed categories to $mathrm{Top}$ that I know of are quasitoposes, such as the category of subsequential spaces (which contains the category of sequential spaces mentioned by Todd, and is locally presentable) or pseudotopological spaces (which contains the entire category $mathrm{Top}$, but is not locally presentable).



                Another approach, used by May and Sigurdsson, is to mix two convenient categories to approximate local cartesian closure. As explained in their book, if $mathcal{K}$ denotes the category of not-necessarily-weak-Hausdorff $k$-spaces, then the pullback functor $f^*:mathcal{K}/Yto mathcal{K}/X$ has a right adjoint as long as $X$ and $Y$ are weak Hausdorff.






                share|cite|improve this answer












                One property that one sometimes wants, but which is not satisfied by most of the "usual" convenient categories, is that of being locally cartesian closed, or equivalently that each pullback functor $f^* : mathcal{C}/Y to mathcal{C}/X$ has a right adjoint $f_*$.



                However, I don't know of any nontrivial subcategory of the usual category $mathrm{Top}$ of topological spaces that is locally cartesian closed. The closest locally cartesian closed categories to $mathrm{Top}$ that I know of are quasitoposes, such as the category of subsequential spaces (which contains the category of sequential spaces mentioned by Todd, and is locally presentable) or pseudotopological spaces (which contains the entire category $mathrm{Top}$, but is not locally presentable).



                Another approach, used by May and Sigurdsson, is to mix two convenient categories to approximate local cartesian closure. As explained in their book, if $mathcal{K}$ denotes the category of not-necessarily-weak-Hausdorff $k$-spaces, then the pullback functor $f^*:mathcal{K}/Yto mathcal{K}/X$ has a right adjoint as long as $X$ and $Y$ are weak Hausdorff.







                share|cite|improve this answer












                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer










                answered Dec 6 at 17:12









                Mike Shulman

                35.7k480217




                35.7k480217






























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to MathOverflow!


                    • 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.





                    Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                    Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                    • 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.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f317004%2fcomparisons-of-convenient-categories-for-algebraic-topology%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    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







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Bressuire

                    Cabo Verde

                    Gyllenstierna