Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T06:34:51.705Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Definability and descent

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

David Ballard
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, CA, USA, E-mail: david.ballard@sonoma.edu
William Boshuck
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics and Statistics, McGill University, Montreal, PQ, Canada, E-mail: boshuck@math.mcgill.ca

Extract

The present note offers a short argument for the descent theorems of Zawadowski [10] (originally [9]) and Makkai [6], which were conjectured by Pitts after the descent theorem of Joyal and Tierney [3] for open geometric morphisms of (Grothendieck) toposes. The original proofs, which involve variants of Makkai's [5] duality for first order logic, are rather involved and there has been considerable interest in locating simpler proofs. Viewed categorically, the descent theorems establish a bicategorical exactness property (conservative morphisms are effective descent) for pretop (the 2-category of small pretoposes, pretopos functors, and natural transformations), for exact (exact categories, exact functors, and natural transformations), and for bpretop* (Boolean pretoposes, pretopos functors, and natural isomorphisms). Viewed logically, they fragment into a familiar Beth/Tarski-type definability theorem and a covering theorem for certain functors on PCΔ-categories (groupoids, in the Boolean case); the latter (as the former) is a arithmetical statement about the syntax of first order logic ([6, §3])).

The argument here involves special models and, independently, a continuity lemma of Makkai. The use of special models is axiomatic in that only a few properties (listed below) are needed. The continuity lemma, 9.1 of [6], is established via forcing and can be read independently of the rest of that paper. Because of its interest to both the model theorist and the category theorist, the argument is first given as straight model theory and afterwards it is briefly indicated how the descent theorems follow.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1998

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] Chang, C. C. and Keisler, H. J., Model theory, third ed., North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1990.Google Scholar
[2] Gabriel, P. and Zisman, M., Calculus of fractions and homotopy theory, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1967.Google Scholar
[3] Joyal, A. and Tierney, M., An extension of the Galois theory of Grothendieck, Memoirs of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 51 (1984), no. 309.Google Scholar
[4] Makkai, M., Ultraproducts and categorical logic, Methods in mathematical logic (Prisco, C. D., editor), Lecture Notes in Mathematics, no. 1130, Springer-Verlag, 1985, proceedings, Caracus 1983, pp. 222309.Google Scholar
[5] Makkai, M., Stone duality for first order logic, Advances in Mathematics, vol. 65 (1987), no. 2, pp. 97170.Google Scholar
[6] Makkai, M., Duality and definability infirst order logic, Memoirs of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 105 (1993), no. 503.Google Scholar
[7] Makkai, M. and Reyes, G. E., First order categorical logic, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, no. 611, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1977.Google Scholar
[8] Pitts, A. M., Interpolation and conceptual completeness for pretoposes via category theory, Mathematical logic and theoretical computer science, Lecture Notes in Pure and Applied Mathematics, no. 106, Marcel Dekker, New York, 1987, proceedings, College Park, Maryland, 1984–1985, pp. 301327.Google Scholar
[9] Zawadowski, M., Un théorème de la descente pour les prétopos, Ph.D. thesis , Université de Montréal, 1989.Google Scholar
[10] Zawadowski, M., Descent and duality, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 71 (1995), pp. 131138.Google Scholar