Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

• Username
• Password
• Remember me

• Sign in using OpenID
• Remember me

• Forgot your password?
• Apply for membership

(0 1)-category-theory 2-category 2-category-theory 2-monad abelian-categories accessible adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry analysis arithmetic beauty book bug bundle categories category category-theory chern-simons-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology combinatorics complex-geometry conference connection constructive constructive-mathematics cosmology database deformation-theory descent differential differential-cohomology differential-geometry duality enriched enriched-category-theory enrichment examples factorization-system fiber fibration forms foundation foundations functional-analysis functor galois-theory gauge-theory gebra general topology geometric geometric-quantization geometry gravity group-theory higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory history homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory homtopy-type-theory infinity-groupoid integration-theory internal-categories kan lie lie-algebras lie-theory limit limits linear linear-algebra locale localization localization-theory logic manifolds mathematics measure measure-theory mechanics meta modal-logic model model-category-theory monoidal monoidal-category monoidal-category-theory morphism n-groups newpage noncommutative noncommutative-geometry object operator operator-algebra order-theory philosophy physics predicative pretopology pro-object probability-theory quantum quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry set set-theory sheaf simplicial site space stable-homotopy-theory stack string string-theory subobject supergeometry symplectic-geometry tannaka tensor terminology theory topologica-quantum-field-theory topology topos topos-theory torsor tqft type type-theory universal weighted-limit

1. • CommentRowNumber1.
   • CommentAuthorzskoda
   • CommentTimeNov 2nd 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: zskoda
   Format: MarkdownItexI have separated [[Eilenberg-Watts theorem]] from [[abelian category]] and added the references and MR links. One of the queries from the [[abelian category]] is moved here with backpointer there. I cleaned up some typoi. The following discussion is about to which extent abelian categories are a general context for [[homological algebra]]. > _Zoran_: I strongly disagree with the first sentence, particularly with THE (it is THE general context for linear algebra and homological algebra). MacLane was (according to Janelidze) looking whole life for what is the general context for homological algebra, and the current answer of expert are semi-abelian categories of Borceux and Janelidze, and homological categories...Linear algebra as well makes sense in many other contexts. This "idea' is to me very misleading. MacLane in 1950 was lead by the idea to axiomatize the categories which behave like abelian groups. Grothendieck wanted to unify on the obsrervation that the categories of abelian sheaves and categories of R-modules have the same setup for homological algebra as in Tohoku. > There is much linear algebra you can do with cokernels, for example, as well as much linear algebra which you can not do if you are not over a field for example. So, saying that abelian categories are distinguished is only among categories which have closest properties to abelian sheaves and R-modules, not among principles for homlogical algebra and linear algebra that uniquely (although the strong motivation was ever there). > [[Mike Shulman|Mike]]: I changed it to "a" general context; is that satisfactory? Once we have pages about those other notions, there can be links from here to there. > _Toby_: I\'ve made the phrasing even weaker. Abelian categories are pretty cool, but (if you don\'t already have the examples that make it so useful) the definition is a fairly arbitrary place to draw the line. > _Tim_ : I note that sometimes we (collectively) take parts of a discussion and turn it into part of an entry, because of that I would like to note two points here. The first is that the accepted first definition of semi-abelian category is in the Janelidze, Marki, and Tholen (JPAA, but we have a link on the semi-abelian entry.) > The other point is that Tim Van der Linden's thesis does a lot of stuff that could be useful. It is available online <http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0607100>

   I have separated Eilenberg-Watts theorem from abelian category and added the references and MR links. One of the queries from the abelian category is moved here with backpointer there. I cleaned up some typoi.

   The following discussion is about to which extent abelian categories are a general context for homological algebra.

   Zoran: I strongly disagree with the first sentence, particularly with THE (it is THE general context for linear algebra and homological algebra). MacLane was (according to Janelidze) looking whole life for what is the general context for homological algebra, and the current answer of expert are semi-abelian categories of Borceux and Janelidze, and homological categories…Linear algebra as well makes sense in many other contexts. This “idea’ is to me very misleading. MacLane in 1950 was lead by the idea to axiomatize the categories which behave like abelian groups. Grothendieck wanted to unify on the obsrervation that the categories of abelian sheaves and categories of R-modules have the same setup for homological algebra as in Tohoku.

   There is much linear algebra you can do with cokernels, for example, as well as much linear algebra which you can not do if you are not over a field for example. So, saying that abelian categories are distinguished is only among categories which have closest properties to abelian sheaves and R-modules, not among principles for homlogical algebra and linear algebra that uniquely (although the strong motivation was ever there).

   Mike: I changed it to “a” general context; is that satisfactory? Once we have pages about those other notions, there can be links from here to there.

   Toby: I've made the phrasing even weaker. Abelian categories are pretty cool, but (if you don't already have the examples that make it so useful) the definition is a fairly arbitrary place to draw the line.

   Tim : I note that sometimes we (collectively) take parts of a discussion and turn it into part of an entry, because of that I would like to note two points here. The first is that the accepted first definition of semi-abelian category is in the Janelidze, Marki, and Tholen (JPAA, but we have a link on the semi-abelian entry.)

   The other point is that Tim Van der Linden’s thesis does a lot of stuff that could be useful. It is available online http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0607100