Bartosz Milewski on Nostr: I feel like I'm missing something. In developing categorical topology, coverage is ...
I feel like I'm missing something. In developing categorical topology, coverage is defined using a collection of families of morphisms, which works just fine. But in classical topology a coverage is defined using a union of sets. In the poset of open sets (with inclusions as morphisms) the union is a categorical coproduct (it's actually a union, not a discriminated union). So why can't we define coverage using a coproduct? What's the advantage of defining it the hard way?
Published at
2024-08-24 21:34:35Event JSON
{
"id": "ac53adcdf2d52909e8fbee7289f7cd7e899bdac5c1c489807476c0078f8d0714",
"pubkey": "a60a88374d8e1cf092c7ea93662aa784fb33b3e75be7725017032e6929ebc5d5",
"created_at": 1724535275,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"proxy",
"https://mathstodon.xyz/users/BartoszMilewski/statuses/113019143845709998",
"activitypub"
]
],
"content": "I feel like I'm missing something. In developing categorical topology, coverage is defined using a collection of families of morphisms, which works just fine. But in classical topology a coverage is defined using a union of sets. In the poset of open sets (with inclusions as morphisms) the union is a categorical coproduct (it's actually a union, not a discriminated union). So why can't we define coverage using a coproduct? What's the advantage of defining it the hard way?",
"sig": "d91c50724d4aae4a5652fc50b38ce648b170c509194b9e54caa8604e37547703cef09f0db82e91c9167e62f96562f3f70cb274fb6fceb700b9893b10d9a48bb6"
}
