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(CategoryTheory/Sites): internal hom of (pre)sheaves #8622
Conversation
this `internalHom F G` is the presheaf of types which sends an object `X : C` | ||
to the type of morphisms between the "restrictions" of `F` and `G` to the category `Over X`. -/ | ||
@[simps! obj] | ||
def internalHom : Cᵒᵖ ⥤ Type _ where |
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.
internalHom
sounds a bit strange as it's not valued in the original category A
. yoneda
feels more appropriate, especially if you show it's functorial in F.
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.
It should not be too hard to deduce an internal hom in Sheaf J A
when A
has a limit-preserving, isomorphism-reflecting functor to types though. I'm not sure it's interesting in other cases.
Internal also refers to the fact that it's internal to sheaf categories.
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.
A itself need to have internal homs, right? Like the category of abelian groups or modules over a CommRing.
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.
Right, of course!
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 am not convinced of yoneda
as a name, but would presheafHom
(and sheafHom
for the sheaf version) be ok? (I do not intend to develop the A
-valued version soon.)
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.
Sounds good to me
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'm fine with either version (internalHom
makes sense at least when A
is Type _
), I agree that yoneda
is not a good name.
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 have fixed the name as presheafHom
.
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.
bors d+
✌️ joelriou can now approve this pull request. To approve and merge a pull request, simply reply with |
Co-authored-by: Johan Commelin <johan@commelin.net>
Thanks for the reviews! bors merge |
In this PR, we define a presheaf `presheafHom F G` when `F` and `G` are presheaves `Cᵒᵖ ⥤ A` and show that it is a sheaf when `G` is a sheaf (for a certain Grothendieck topology on `C`). Co-authored-by: Joël Riou <37772949+joelriou@users.noreply.github.com>
Pull request successfully merged into master. Build succeeded: |
In this PR, we define a presheaf `presheafHom F G` when `F` and `G` are presheaves `Cᵒᵖ ⥤ A` and show that it is a sheaf when `G` is a sheaf (for a certain Grothendieck topology on `C`). Co-authored-by: Joël Riou <37772949+joelriou@users.noreply.github.com>
In this PR, we define a presheaf
presheafHom F G
whenF
andG
are presheavesCᵒᵖ ⥤ A
and show that it is a sheaf whenG
is a sheaf (for a certain Grothendieck topology onC
).