Johnstone, Topos theory: families of arrows inducing the same sheaf condition
Johnstone, Topos theory, 0.3, page 13, asserts that, given a Grothendieck pretopology $P$, if the equalizer condition on a presheaf $F$ is satisfied for a family of arrows $R={U_ito U}$, then it is satisfied for every family $S={W_jto U}supset R$.
By equalizer condition I mean that $$F(U)to prod_R F(U_i)rightrightarrows prod_{Rtimes R}F(U_itimes_U U_j),$$ with the natural restriction maps, is an equalizer.
I can't see why this is true. First of all, should I assume that $R$ is a covering in the given pretopology? Otherwise it would sound very strange to me. For example, take a discrete space of two points $X={p,q}$, the pretopology being given by the topological coverings, and take $R={pto X}, S={pto X,qto X}$; then the equalizer condition for $R$ means that every local section on $p$ comes from a global section on $X$. So take $F(p):={0}, F(q)=mathbb Z, F(varnothing)={0},F(X)={0}$. This is a presheaf (with the natural maps, identity or zero) and satisfies the equalizer condition for $U=X$ and the family $R$ just defined: in
$${0}to {0} rightrightarrows {0}$$ one can always take the global section $0$ on the left. However, the equalizer for $S$ is: $${0}to {0}times mathbb Zrightrightarrows {0}times {0}times {0}times mathbb Z$$ where both arrows on the right are equal to $(0,1)mapsto (0,0,0,1)$ (note that the "mixed" fiber products $ptimes_X q$ and $qtimes _X p$ are the empty set). So take $(0,1)in {0}times mathbb Z$ in the central node of the last diagram. The maps on the right are the same, hence $F$ satisfies the equalizer condition for $S$ if and only if there exists $sin F(X)=0$ s.t. $s|_{{p}}=0,s|_{{q}}=1$, but this is of course impossible.
Is my conterexample correct?
Thank you in advance.
sheaf-theory topos-theory
asked Dec 9 at 14:53
W. Rether
698416
This question has an open bounty worth +100
reputation from W. Rether ending in 16 hours.
The question is widely applicable to a large audience. A detailed canonical answer is required to address all the concerns.
|
show 1 more comment
Johnstone, Topos theory, 0.3, page 13, asserts that, given a Grothendieck pretopology $P$, if the equalizer condition on a presheaf $F$ is satisfied for a family of arrows $R={U_ito U}$, then it is satisfied for every family $S={W_jto U}supset R$.
By equalizer condition I mean that $$F(U)to prod_R F(U_i)rightrightarrows prod_{Rtimes R}F(U_itimes_U U_j),$$ with the natural restriction maps, is an equalizer.
I can't see why this is true. First of all, should I assume that $R$ is a covering in the given pretopology? Otherwise it would sound very strange to me. For example, take a discrete space of two points $X={p,q}$, the pretopology being given by the topological coverings, and take $R={pto X}, S={pto X,qto X}$; then the equalizer condition for $R$ means that every local section on $p$ comes from a global section on $X$. So take $F(p):={0}, F(q)=mathbb Z, F(varnothing)={0},F(X)={0}$. This is a presheaf (with the natural maps, identity or zero) and satisfies the equalizer condition for $U=X$ and the family $R$ just defined: in
$${0}to {0} rightrightarrows {0}$$ one can always take the global section $0$ on the left. However, the equalizer for $S$ is: $${0}to {0}times mathbb Zrightrightarrows {0}times {0}times {0}times mathbb Z$$ where both arrows on the right are equal to $(0,1)mapsto (0,0,0,1)$ (note that the "mixed" fiber products $ptimes_X q$ and $qtimes _X p$ are the empty set). So take $(0,1)in {0}times mathbb Z$ in the central node of the last diagram. The maps on the right are the same, hence $F$ satisfies the equalizer condition for $S$ if and only if there exists $sin F(X)=0$ s.t. $s|_{{p}}=0,s|_{{q}}=1$, but this is of course impossible.
Is my conterexample correct?
Thank you in advance.
sheaf-theory topos-theory
asked Dec 9 at 14:53
W. Rether
698416
This question has an open bounty worth +100
reputation from W. Rether ending in 16 hours.
The question is widely applicable to a large audience. A detailed canonical answer is required to address all the concerns.
In your $F$, what is the morphism $F(q)to F(varnothing)$?
– Malice Vidrine
Dec 9 at 18:59
The zero morphism. Is this a problem?
– W. Rether
Dec 9 at 19:16
I think I'm just being confused by you notation. Writing ${0}$ as $0$, when $0$ is also common notation for an initial object, makes it look like you're trying to reason from an impossible presheaf. I think I see what you're doing now.
– Malice Vidrine
Dec 9 at 19:26
Oh, sorry! Fixed. $F$ should be a presheaf, isn't it?
– W. Rether
Dec 9 at 20:33
Another possible counterexample in the first displayed answer to math.stackexchange.com/questions/856564/…
– W. Rether
Dec 9 at 20:38
|
show 1 more comment
Johnstone, Topos theory, 0.3, page 13, asserts that, given a Grothendieck pretopology $P$, if the equalizer condition on a presheaf $F$ is satisfied for a family of arrows $R={U_ito U}$, then it is satisfied for every family $S={W_jto U}supset R$.
By equalizer condition I mean that $$F(U)to prod_R F(U_i)rightrightarrows prod_{Rtimes R}F(U_itimes_U U_j),$$ with the natural restriction maps, is an equalizer.
I can't see why this is true. First of all, should I assume that $R$ is a covering in the given pretopology? Otherwise it would sound very strange to me. For example, take a discrete space of two points $X={p,q}$, the pretopology being given by the topological coverings, and take $R={pto X}, S={pto X,qto X}$; then the equalizer condition for $R$ means that every local section on $p$ comes from a global section on $X$. So take $F(p):={0}, F(q)=mathbb Z, F(varnothing)={0},F(X)={0}$. This is a presheaf (with the natural maps, identity or zero) and satisfies the equalizer condition for $U=X$ and the family $R$ just defined: in
$${0}to {0} rightrightarrows {0}$$ one can always take the global section $0$ on the left. However, the equalizer for $S$ is: $${0}to {0}times mathbb Zrightrightarrows {0}times {0}times {0}times mathbb Z$$ where both arrows on the right are equal to $(0,1)mapsto (0,0,0,1)$ (note that the "mixed" fiber products $ptimes_X q$ and $qtimes _X p$ are the empty set). So take $(0,1)in {0}times mathbb Z$ in the central node of the last diagram. The maps on the right are the same, hence $F$ satisfies the equalizer condition for $S$ if and only if there exists $sin F(X)=0$ s.t. $s|_{{p}}=0,s|_{{q}}=1$, but this is of course impossible.
Is my conterexample correct?
Thank you in advance.
sheaf-theory topos-theory
asked Dec 9 at 14:53
W. Rether
698416
Johnstone, Topos theory, 0.3, page 13, asserts that, given a Grothendieck pretopology $P$, if the equalizer condition on a presheaf $F$ is satisfied for a family of arrows $R={U_ito U}$, then it is satisfied for every family $S={W_jto U}supset R$.
By equalizer condition I mean that $$F(U)to prod_R F(U_i)rightrightarrows prod_{Rtimes R}F(U_itimes_U U_j),$$ with the natural restriction maps, is an equalizer.
I can't see why this is true. First of all, should I assume that $R$ is a covering in the given pretopology? Otherwise it would sound very strange to me. For example, take a discrete space of two points $X={p,q}$, the pretopology being given by the topological coverings, and take $R={pto X}, S={pto X,qto X}$; then the equalizer condition for $R$ means that every local section on $p$ comes from a global section on $X$. So take $F(p):={0}, F(q)=mathbb Z, F(varnothing)={0},F(X)={0}$. This is a presheaf (with the natural maps, identity or zero) and satisfies the equalizer condition for $U=X$ and the family $R$ just defined: in
$${0}to {0} rightrightarrows {0}$$ one can always take the global section $0$ on the left. However, the equalizer for $S$ is: $${0}to {0}times mathbb Zrightrightarrows {0}times {0}times {0}times mathbb Z$$ where both arrows on the right are equal to $(0,1)mapsto (0,0,0,1)$ (note that the "mixed" fiber products $ptimes_X q$ and $qtimes _X p$ are the empty set). So take $(0,1)in {0}times mathbb Z$ in the central node of the last diagram. The maps on the right are the same, hence $F$ satisfies the equalizer condition for $S$ if and only if there exists $sin F(X)=0$ s.t. $s|_{{p}}=0,s|_{{q}}=1$, but this is of course impossible.
Is my conterexample correct?
Thank you in advance.
sheaf-theory topos-theory
sheaf-theory topos-theory
asked Dec 9 at 14:53
W. Rether
698416
asked Dec 9 at 14:53
W. Rether
698416
edited Dec 9 at 20:33
asked Dec 9 at 14:53
W. Rether
698416
asked Dec 9 at 14:53
W. Rether
698416
asked Dec 9 at 14:53
W. Rether
698416
698416
This question has an open bounty worth +100
reputation from W. Rether ending in 16 hours.
The question is widely applicable to a large audience. A detailed canonical answer is required to address all the concerns.
This question has an open bounty worth +100
reputation from W. Rether ending in 16 hours.
The question is widely applicable to a large audience. A detailed canonical answer is required to address all the concerns.
In your $F$, what is the morphism $F(q)to F(varnothing)$?
– Malice Vidrine
Dec 9 at 18:59
The zero morphism. Is this a problem?
– W. Rether
Dec 9 at 19:16
I think I'm just being confused by you notation. Writing ${0}$ as $0$, when $0$ is also common notation for an initial object, makes it look like you're trying to reason from an impossible presheaf. I think I see what you're doing now.
– Malice Vidrine
Dec 9 at 19:26
Oh, sorry! Fixed. $F$ should be a presheaf, isn't it?
– W. Rether
Dec 9 at 20:33
Another possible counterexample in the first displayed answer to math.stackexchange.com/questions/856564/…
– W. Rether
Dec 9 at 20:38
|
show 1 more comment
In your $F$, what is the morphism $F(q)to F(varnothing)$?
– Malice Vidrine
Dec 9 at 18:59
The zero morphism. Is this a problem?
– W. Rether
Dec 9 at 19:16
I think I'm just being confused by you notation. Writing ${0}$ as $0$, when $0$ is also common notation for an initial object, makes it look like you're trying to reason from an impossible presheaf. I think I see what you're doing now.
– Malice Vidrine
Dec 9 at 19:26
Oh, sorry! Fixed. $F$ should be a presheaf, isn't it?
– W. Rether
Dec 9 at 20:33
Another possible counterexample in the first displayed answer to math.stackexchange.com/questions/856564/…
– W. Rether
Dec 9 at 20:38
In your $F$, what is the morphism $F(q)to F(varnothing)$?
– Malice Vidrine
Dec 9 at 18:59
In your $F$, what is the morphism $F(q)to F(varnothing)$?
– Malice Vidrine
Dec 9 at 18:59
The zero morphism. Is this a problem?
– W. Rether
Dec 9 at 19:16
The zero morphism. Is this a problem?
– W. Rether
Dec 9 at 19:16
I think I'm just being confused by you notation. Writing ${0}$ as $0$, when $0$ is also common notation for an initial object, makes it look like you're trying to reason from an impossible presheaf. I think I see what you're doing now.
– Malice Vidrine
Dec 9 at 19:26
I think I'm just being confused by you notation. Writing ${0}$ as $0$, when $0$ is also common notation for an initial object, makes it look like you're trying to reason from an impossible presheaf. I think I see what you're doing now.
– Malice Vidrine
Dec 9 at 19:26
Oh, sorry! Fixed. $F$ should be a presheaf, isn't it?
– W. Rether
Dec 9 at 20:33
Oh, sorry! Fixed. $F$ should be a presheaf, isn't it?
– W. Rether
Dec 9 at 20:33
Another possible counterexample in the first displayed answer to math.stackexchange.com/questions/856564/…
– W. Rether
Dec 9 at 20:38
Another possible counterexample in the first displayed answer to math.stackexchange.com/questions/856564/…
– W. Rether
Dec 9 at 20:38
|
show 1 more comment
active
oldest
votes
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%2f3032454%2fjohnstone-topos-theory-families-of-arrows-inducing-the-same-sheaf-condition%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
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.
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.
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%2f3032454%2fjohnstone-topos-theory-families-of-arrows-inducing-the-same-sheaf-condition%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
In your $F$, what is the morphism $F(q)to F(varnothing)$?
– Malice Vidrine
Dec 9 at 18:59
The zero morphism. Is this a problem?
– W. Rether
Dec 9 at 19:16
I think I'm just being confused by you notation. Writing ${0}$ as $0$, when $0$ is also common notation for an initial object, makes it look like you're trying to reason from an impossible presheaf. I think I see what you're doing now.
– Malice Vidrine
Dec 9 at 19:26
Oh, sorry! Fixed. $F$ should be a presheaf, isn't it?
– W. Rether
Dec 9 at 20:33
Another possible counterexample in the first displayed answer to math.stackexchange.com/questions/856564/…
– W. Rether
Dec 9 at 20:38