Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T17:19:00.867Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Logic, sheaves, and factorization systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

G. P. Monro*
Affiliation:
School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Sydney, N.S.W. 2006, Sydney, Australia

Extract

In this paper we extend the models for the “logic of categories” to a wider class of categories than is usually considered. We consider two kinds of logic, a restricted first-order logic and the full higher-order logic of elementary topoi.

The restricted first-order logic has as its only logical symbols ∧, ∃, Τ, and =. We interpret this logic in a category with finite limits equipped with a factorization system (in the sense of [4]). We require to satisfy two additional conditions: ⊆ Monos, and any pullback of an arrow in is again in . A category with a factorization system satisfying these conditions will be called an EM-category.

The interpretation of the restricted logic in EM-categories is given in §1. In §2 we give an axiomatization for the logic, and in §§3 and 5 we give two completeness proofs for this axiomatization. The first completeness proof constructs an EM-category out of the logic, in the spirit of Makkai and Reyes [8], though the construction used here differs from theirs. The second uses Boolean-valued models and shows that the restricted logic is exactly the ∧, ∃-fragment of classical first-order logic (adapted to categories). Some examples of EM-categories are given in §4.

The restricted logic is powerful enough to handle relations, and in §6 we assign to each EM-category a bicategory of relations Rel() and a category of “functional relations” fr. fr is shown to be a regular category, and it turns out that Rel( and Rel(fr) are biequivalent bicategories. In §7 we study complete objects in an EM-category where an object of is called complete if every functional relation into is yielded by a unique morphism into . We write c for the full subcategory of consisting of the complete objects. Complete objects have some, but not all, of the properties that sheaves have in a category of presheaves.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

[1]Boileau, André and Joyal, André, La logique des topos, this Journal, vol. 46 (1981), pp. 616.Google Scholar
[2]Carboni, Aurelio, Kasangian, Stefano, and Street, Ross, Bicategories of spans and relations, Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra, vol. 33 (1984), pp. 259267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3]Cassidy, C., Hébert, M., and Kelly, G. M., Reflective subcategories, localizations, and factorization systems, Australian Mathematical Society. Journal, Series A, vol. 38 (1985), pp. 287329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4]Freyd, P. J. and Kelly, G. M., Categories of continuous functors. I, Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra, vol. 2 (1972), pp. 169–191; erratum vol. 4 (1974), p. 121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5]Higgs, Denis, A category approach to Boolean-valued set theory, University of Waterloo, 1973.Google Scholar
[6]Johnstone, P. T., Topos theory, Academic Press, London, 1977.Google Scholar
[7]Makkai, Michael and Reyes, Gonzalo, First order categorical logic, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 611, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[8]Monro, G. P., Quasitopoi, logic and Heyting-valued models, Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra, vol. 42 (1986), pp. 141164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9]Veit, Barbara, A proof of the associated sheaf theorem by categorical logic, this Journal, vol. 46 (1981), pp. 4555.Google Scholar