Comparisons of convenient categories for algebraic topology












11












$begingroup$


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











$endgroup$

















    11












    $begingroup$


    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











    $endgroup$















      11












      11








      11


      2



      $begingroup$


      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











      $endgroup$




      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 '18 at 0:42









      Goldstern

      11.2k13260




      11.2k13260










      asked Dec 6 '18 at 0:03









      Rick SternbachRick Sternbach

      4219




      4219






















          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          14












          $begingroup$

          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









          $endgroup$









          • 2




            $begingroup$
            See also Booth, P.I. and Tillotson, J. Monoidal closed categories and convenient categories of topological spaces Pacific J. Math. {88} (1980) 33--53.
            $endgroup$
            – Ronnie Brown
            Dec 6 '18 at 12:39












          • $begingroup$
            Freely-available pdf link for Booth–Tillotson: msp.org/pjm/1980/88-1/pjm-v88-n1-p03-s.pdf
            $endgroup$
            – David Roberts
            Dec 7 '18 at 20:33



















          7












          $begingroup$

          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









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            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.
            $endgroup$
            – Tim Campion
            Dec 7 '18 at 18:15



















          4












          $begingroup$

          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









          $endgroup$













            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









            14












            $begingroup$

            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









            $endgroup$









            • 2




              $begingroup$
              See also Booth, P.I. and Tillotson, J. Monoidal closed categories and convenient categories of topological spaces Pacific J. Math. {88} (1980) 33--53.
              $endgroup$
              – Ronnie Brown
              Dec 6 '18 at 12:39












            • $begingroup$
              Freely-available pdf link for Booth–Tillotson: msp.org/pjm/1980/88-1/pjm-v88-n1-p03-s.pdf
              $endgroup$
              – David Roberts
              Dec 7 '18 at 20:33
















            14












            $begingroup$

            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









            $endgroup$









            • 2




              $begingroup$
              See also Booth, P.I. and Tillotson, J. Monoidal closed categories and convenient categories of topological spaces Pacific J. Math. {88} (1980) 33--53.
              $endgroup$
              – Ronnie Brown
              Dec 6 '18 at 12:39












            • $begingroup$
              Freely-available pdf link for Booth–Tillotson: msp.org/pjm/1980/88-1/pjm-v88-n1-p03-s.pdf
              $endgroup$
              – David Roberts
              Dec 7 '18 at 20:33














            14












            14








            14





            $begingroup$

            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









            $endgroup$



            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 '18 at 1:07









            Todd TrimbleTodd Trimble

            43.6k5156258




            43.6k5156258








            • 2




              $begingroup$
              See also Booth, P.I. and Tillotson, J. Monoidal closed categories and convenient categories of topological spaces Pacific J. Math. {88} (1980) 33--53.
              $endgroup$
              – Ronnie Brown
              Dec 6 '18 at 12:39












            • $begingroup$
              Freely-available pdf link for Booth–Tillotson: msp.org/pjm/1980/88-1/pjm-v88-n1-p03-s.pdf
              $endgroup$
              – David Roberts
              Dec 7 '18 at 20:33














            • 2




              $begingroup$
              See also Booth, P.I. and Tillotson, J. Monoidal closed categories and convenient categories of topological spaces Pacific J. Math. {88} (1980) 33--53.
              $endgroup$
              – Ronnie Brown
              Dec 6 '18 at 12:39












            • $begingroup$
              Freely-available pdf link for Booth–Tillotson: msp.org/pjm/1980/88-1/pjm-v88-n1-p03-s.pdf
              $endgroup$
              – David Roberts
              Dec 7 '18 at 20:33








            2




            2




            $begingroup$
            See also Booth, P.I. and Tillotson, J. Monoidal closed categories and convenient categories of topological spaces Pacific J. Math. {88} (1980) 33--53.
            $endgroup$
            – Ronnie Brown
            Dec 6 '18 at 12:39






            $begingroup$
            See also Booth, P.I. and Tillotson, J. Monoidal closed categories and convenient categories of topological spaces Pacific J. Math. {88} (1980) 33--53.
            $endgroup$
            – Ronnie Brown
            Dec 6 '18 at 12:39














            $begingroup$
            Freely-available pdf link for Booth–Tillotson: msp.org/pjm/1980/88-1/pjm-v88-n1-p03-s.pdf
            $endgroup$
            – David Roberts
            Dec 7 '18 at 20:33




            $begingroup$
            Freely-available pdf link for Booth–Tillotson: msp.org/pjm/1980/88-1/pjm-v88-n1-p03-s.pdf
            $endgroup$
            – David Roberts
            Dec 7 '18 at 20:33











            7












            $begingroup$

            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









            $endgroup$













            • $begingroup$
              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.
              $endgroup$
              – Tim Campion
              Dec 7 '18 at 18:15
















            7












            $begingroup$

            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









            $endgroup$













            • $begingroup$
              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.
              $endgroup$
              – Tim Campion
              Dec 7 '18 at 18:15














            7












            7








            7





            $begingroup$

            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









            $endgroup$



            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 '18 at 0:42









            David RobertsDavid Roberts

            16.8k462175




            16.8k462175












            • $begingroup$
              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.
              $endgroup$
              – Tim Campion
              Dec 7 '18 at 18:15


















            • $begingroup$
              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.
              $endgroup$
              – Tim Campion
              Dec 7 '18 at 18:15
















            $begingroup$
            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.
            $endgroup$
            – Tim Campion
            Dec 7 '18 at 18:15




            $begingroup$
            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.
            $endgroup$
            – Tim Campion
            Dec 7 '18 at 18:15











            4












            $begingroup$

            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









            $endgroup$


















              4












              $begingroup$

              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









              $endgroup$
















                4












                4








                4





                $begingroup$

                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









                $endgroup$



                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 '18 at 17:12









                Mike ShulmanMike Shulman

                36k481221




                36k481221






























                    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.




                    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

                    Tonle Sap (See)

                    I get strange results when I access the Sqlitedatabase with Unity C# via XAMPP

                    Guatemaltekische Davis-Cup-Mannschaft