Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

In Sheaves in Geometry and Logic, Moerdijk and Mac Lane construct the associated sheaf on a site $(\mathcal C, J)$ of a presheaf $P$ as $$ a(P) = (P^+)^+ ,$$ where $P^+$ is defined pointwise as $P^+(U) = \underrightarrow{\mathrm{lim}}_{R \in J(U)} \mathrm{Hom}_{\mathrm{Psh}(\mathcal C)}(R, P)$. Then they prove that $P^+$ is a presheaf (satisfying some properties).

I wonder if one could skip the last part (proving that $P^+$ is a presheaf) by defining $P^+$ direclty as a colimit in the category $\mathrm{Psh}(\mathcal C)$ rather thant pointwise. I tried to find out that colimit without success, principally because the pointwise compuation makes the indexing family dependant of the point. So is it possible ? If so, could someone give me a hint ? If not, what is the reason ?

share|cite|improve this question
    
Colimits in the category of presheaves are computed pointwise. – Martin Brandenburg Apr 30 '13 at 10:24
    
@MartinBrandenburg Yes, but with a fixed indexing category, right ? Namely, for a diagram $A : I \to \mathrm{Psh}(\mathcal C)$, one have for $U$ object of $\mathcal C$ $(\underrightarrow{\mathrm{lim}}_I A)(U) = \underrightarrow{\mathrm{lim}}_I A_U$ where $A_U$ is the diagram $A_U(i) = A(i)(U)$ for $i$ object of $I$. I'm trying here to find the $I$ and $A$ for $P^+$. – Pece Apr 30 '13 at 10:29
2  
No, I don't think there's any shortcut here, precisely because the indexing category is different from one place to the next. By formal nonsense there is a diagram whose colimit computes $P^+$ for a given $P$, but it's not obvious to me whether the diagram depends on $P$ or not. – Zhen Lin Apr 30 '13 at 12:26
    
@ZhenLin Thanks, that was precisely my question (the dependence on $P$ of such a diagram). The existence of the diagram by itself does not interest me per se. I would have been happy to find an expression of the diagram with respect to $P$. – Pece Apr 30 '13 at 12:35

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.