New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[Merged by Bors] - feat(category_theory/sites/*): Cover-lifting functors on sites #9431
Conversation
Given a structured arrow `X ⟶ F(U)`, and an arrow `U ⟶ Y`, we can construct a morphism of | ||
structured arrow given by `(X ⟶ F(U)) ⟶ (X ⟶ F(U) ⟶ F(Y))`. | ||
-/ | ||
def hom_mk' {F : C ⥤ D} {X : D} {Y : C} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Do we really need this definition? I think it looks a little out of place on its own...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I tried not to, but I couldn't find a better way to construct those kind of morphisms without using have
everywhere.
Co-authored-by: Johan Commelin <johan@commelin.net>
Co-authored-by: Johan Commelin <johan@commelin.net>
Co-authored-by: Johan Commelin <johan@commelin.net>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Some comments from a brief read, I'll take a closer look once these (and Johan's) comments have been addressed.
Co-authored-by: Bhavik Mehta <bhavikmehta8@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Bhavik Mehta <bhavikmehta8@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Bhavik Mehta <bhavikmehta8@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Bhavik Mehta <bhavikmehta8@gmail.com>
…anprover-community/mathlib into cocontinuous_functor_on_sites
Co-authored-by: Johan Commelin <johan@commelin.net>
This is starting to look good. I have one question: how responsive is the file? You prove some things using |
It is indeed not that responsive, but replacing the simps to sorrys doesn't seem to change the running time at all, so I assume that the bottleneck is not at the simps. |
Co-authored-by: Johan Commelin <johan@commelin.net>
Co-authored-by: Justus Springer <50165510+justus-springer@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Justus Springer <50165510+justus-springer@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Justus Springer <50165510+justus-springer@users.noreply.github.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks 🎉
bors merge
This PR defines cover-liftings functors between sites, and proves that `Ran F.op` maps sheaves to sheaves for cover-lifting functors `F`. This will probably be needed when we want to glue B-sheaves into sheaves. Co-authored-by: erdOne <36414270+erdOne@users.noreply.github.com>
Pull request successfully merged into master. Build succeeded: |
It would be an interesting project to define the structure sheaf on Spec using this PR. Endow the ring with a category structure and a Grothendieck topology, so that However, this approach seems not applicable for the localization functor (see p.7), so I'm not in favor of it. |
This PR defines cover-liftings functors between sites, and proves that
Ran F.op
maps sheaves to sheaves for cover-lifting functorsF
.This will probably be needed when we want to glue B-sheaves into sheaves.
By the way, is there a better name for
Ran_is_sheaf
? It sounds quite odd now.