MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2136639982

Finitely presentable morphisms in exact sequences

2010· article· en· W2136639982 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Michel H Ebert

Bibliographic record

VenueTheory and applications of categories · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicHomotopy and Cohomology in Algebraic Topology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsFinitaryMorphismFinitely-generated abelian groupStallings theorem about ends of groupsFunctorAbelian groupPure mathematicsDiscrete mathematicsCombinatorics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Let K be a locally finitely presentable category. If K is abelian and the sequence 0 K // X // k // C c // // 0 // is short exact, we show that 1) K is finitely generated⇔ c is finitely presentable; 2) k is finitely presentable⇔ C is finitely presentable. The “⇐” directions fail for semi-abelian varieties. We show that all but (possibly) 2)(⇐) follow from analogous properties which hold in all locally finitely presentable categories. As for 2)(⇐), it holds as soon as K is also co-homological, and all its strong epimorphisms are regular. Finally, locally finitely coherent (resp. noetherian) abelian categories are characterized as those for which all finitely presentable morphisms have finitely generated (resp. presentable) kernel objects. 1. Finitely presentable morphisms Recall (from [GU, 71] or [AR, 94]) that an object X in a category K is finitely presentable (finitely generated) if the hom-functor K(X,−) : X −→ Set preserves filtered colimits (resp. colimits of filtered diagrams made of monomorphisms). Then, K is finitely accessible if it has a (small) set of finitely presentable objects whose closure under filtered colimits is all of K. Finally, K is locally finitely presentable if it is finitely accessible and cocomplete. 1.1. Definition. Let f : X // Y be a morphism in K. (a) f is finitely presentable (resp. finitely generated) if it is a finitely presentable (resp. finitely generated) object of the slice category (X ↓ K). (b) f is finitary if X and Y are finitely presentable. The finitary morphisms of K are actually the finitely presentable objects of the category of morphisms K→. They are precisely those finitely presentable morphisms with a finitely presentable domain (see below). Finitely presentable morphisms have been first considered in algebraic geometry, where they play an important role (for example in the Chevalley Theorem; see [GD, 64] and [D, 92]). In fact, in the category CRng of commutative rings, the definition above Received by the editors 2010-11-13 and, in revised form, 2010-05-03. Transmitted by J. Rosicky. Published on 2010-05-06. 2000 Mathematics Subject Classification: 18A20, 18E10, 18C35, 18E15.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.007
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.283 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTheory and applications of categoriesSame topicHomotopy and Cohomology in Algebraic TopologyFrench-language works237,207