Skip to content

Add several negative properties of LRS_R deduced from those of Top#231

Merged
ScriptRaccoon merged 1 commit into
ScriptRaccoon:mainfrom
dschepler:lrs-not-cartesian-closed
Jun 10, 2026
Merged

Add several negative properties of LRS_R deduced from those of Top#231
ScriptRaccoon merged 1 commit into
ScriptRaccoon:mainfrom
dschepler:lrs-not-cartesian-closed

Conversation

@dschepler

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Addresses: #227

@ScriptRaccoon ScriptRaccoon linked an issue Jun 6, 2026 that may be closed by this pull request
@ScriptRaccoon

ScriptRaccoon commented Jun 7, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Thanks a lot! I am glad that we can finally decide some of the properties of this category. It's also good to see that you could generalize your proof that previously only worked for special ground rings.

I have revised the content page, please check the three 3 commits that I added.

I still need to check the proofs in LRS_R.yaml. I will do this in the evening today.

Comment thread databases/catdat/data/categories/LRS_R.yaml Outdated
@dschepler dschepler force-pushed the lrs-not-cartesian-closed branch 2 times, most recently from 4e26c65 to d2d7585 Compare June 8, 2026 23:57
@dschepler

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

I have a question about the proof that Top does not have cartesian filtered colimits: the link given is proving that $\mathbb{Q} \times {-}$ does not preserve coequalizers, but coequalizers aren't filtered colimits. Is there some implication involved, not mentioned in the proof, that relates cartesian filtered colimits to "cartesian coequalizers"?

@ScriptRaccoon

ScriptRaccoon commented Jun 9, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

I have a question about the proof that Top does not have cartesian filtered colimits: the link given is proving that Q × − does not preserve coequalizers, but coequalizers aren't filtered colimits. Is there some implication involved, not mentioned in the proof, that relates cartesian filtered colimits to "cartesian coequalizers"?

The link is wrong, it should be https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1255678 (it was correct once, at some point I made the wrong replacement).

The same link is used for Haus.

Comment thread databases/catdat/data/categories/LRS_R.yaml
Comment thread content/Top-embeds-in-LRS.md Outdated
Comment thread content/Top-embeds-in-LRS.md Outdated
@ScriptRaccoon

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

I have a question about the proof that Top does not have cartesian filtered colimits: the link given is proving that Q × − does not preserve coequalizers, but coequalizers aren't filtered colimits. Is there some implication involved, not mentioned in the proof, that relates cartesian filtered colimits to "cartesian coequalizers"?

The link is wrong, it should be https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1255678 (it was correct once, at some point I made the wrong replacement).

Fixed in 275de99

Comment thread content/subcategories.md Outdated
@ScriptRaccoon

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

FYI #241

@dschepler dschepler force-pushed the lrs-not-cartesian-closed branch from a80b9c3 to aa3544c Compare June 10, 2026 13:29
@ScriptRaccoon

ScriptRaccoon commented Jun 10, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

The rebase was a bit aggressive 😄 since you now also squashed my commits that were independent from LRS (src/lib/server/markdown.ts and src/routes/content/[id]/+page.svelte), but it's OK. Just a reminder to be a bit more careful next time! 👍🏻

@ScriptRaccoon ScriptRaccoon merged commit 81c97a4 into ScriptRaccoon:main Jun 10, 2026
1 check passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

What to do with my proof that LRS is not cartesian closed?

2 participants