Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-bt4hw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T05:30:04.979Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lawvere–Tierney sheaves in Algebraic Set Theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

S. Awodey ,
N. Gambino ,
P. L. Lumsdaine  and
M. A. Warren
S. Awodey
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Carnegie Mellon University, 5000 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pa 15213, USA, E-mail: awodey@cmu.edu
N. Gambino
Affiliation:
Department of Computer Science, University of Leicester, University Road, Leicester Lei 7Rh, UK, E-mail: nicola.gambino@gmail.com
P. L. Lumsdaine
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematical Sciences, Carnegie Mellon University, 5000 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pa 15213, USA, E-mail: plumsdai@andrew.cmu.edu
M. A. Warren
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Carnegie Mellon University, 5000 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pa 15213, USA, E-mail: mwarren@andrew.cmu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We present a solution to the problem of denning a counterpart in Algebraic Set Theory of the construction of internal sheaves in Topos Theory. Our approach is general in that we consider sheaves as determined by Lawvere-Tierney coverages, rather than by Grothendieck coverages, and assume only a weakening of the axioms for small maps originally introduced by Joyal and Moerdijk, thus subsuming the existing topos-theoretic results.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 74 , Issue 3 , September 2009 , pp. 861 - 890
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2009

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

[1]Aczel, P. and Rathjen, M., Notes on constructive set theory, Technical Report 40, Mittag–Leffler Institut, The Swedish Royal Academy of Sciences, 2001.Google Scholar
[2]Awodey, S., Butz, C., Simpson, A., and Streicher, T., Relating topos theory and set theory via categories of classes, Technical Report CMU-PHIL-146, Department of Philosophy, Carnegie Mellon University, 2003.Google Scholar
[3]Awodey, S. and Warren, M. A., Predicative algebraic set theory, Theory and applications of categories, vol. 15 (2005), no. 1, pp. 1–39.Google Scholar
[4]van den Berg, B., Sheaves for predicative toposes, Archive for Mathematical Logic, to appear. ArXiv:math.L0/0507480vl, 2005.Google Scholar
[5]van den Berg, B. and Moerdijk, I., A unified approach to algebraic set theory, arXiv: 0710.3066vl, 2007, to appear in the Proceedings of the Logic Colloquium 2006.Google Scholar
[6]van den Berg, B., Aspects of predicative algebraic set theory I: Exact completions, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 156 (2008), no. 1, pp. 123–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7]Carboni, A., Some free constructions in readability and proof theory, Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra, vol. 103 (1995), pp. 117–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[8]Carboni, A. and Vitale, E. M., Regular and exact completions, Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra, vol. 125 (1998), pp. 79–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9]Fourman, M. P., Sheaf models for set theory, Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra, vol. 19 (1980), pp. 91–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[10]Freyd, P., The axiom of choice, Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra, vol. 19 (1980), pp. 103–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[11]Gambino, N., Presheaf models for constructive set theories, From sets and types to topology and analysis (Crosilla, L. and Schuster, P., editors), Oxford University Press, 2005, pp. 62–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[12]Gambino, N., Heyting-valued interpretations for constructive set theory, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 137 (2006), no. 1-3, pp. 164–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[13]Gambino, N., The associated sheaf functor theorem in algebraic set theory, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 156 (2008), no. 1, pp. 68–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[14]Gambino, N. and Aczel, P., The generalized type-theoretic interpretation of constructive set theory, this Journal, vol. 71 (2006), no. 1, pp. 67–103.Google Scholar
[15]Grayson, R. J., Forcing for intuitionistic systems without power-set, this Journal, vol. 48 (1983), no. 3, pp. 670–682.Google Scholar
[16]Johnstone, P. T., Sketches of an elephant: A topos theory compendium, Oxford University Press, 2002.Google Scholar
[17]Joyal, A. and Moerdijk, I., Algebraic set theory, Cambridge University Press, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[18]Lane, S. Mac and Moerdijk, I., Sheaves in geometry and logic: A first introduction to topos theory, Springer, 1992.Google Scholar
[19]Lubarsky, R. S., Independence results around constructive ZF, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 132 (2005), no. 2-3, pp. 209–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[20]Makkai, M. and Reyes, G., First-order categorical logic, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 611, Springer, 1977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[21]McCarty, D. C., Readability and recursive mathematics, Ph.D. thesis, University of Oxford, 1984.Google Scholar
[22]Moerduk, I. and Palmgren, E., Type theories, toposes, and constructive set theories: predicative aspects of AST, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 114 (2002), pp. 155–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[23]Nordström, B., Petersson, K., and Smith, J. M., Martin-Löf type theory, Handbook of logic in computer science (Abramsky, S., Gabbay, D. M., and Maibaum, T. S. E., editors), vol. 5, Oxford University Press, 2000.Google Scholar
[24]Rathjen, M., Realizability for constructive Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory, Logic Colloquium '03 (Väänänen, J. and Stoltenberg-Hansen, V., editors), Lecture Notes in Logic, vol. 24, Association for Symbolic Logic and AK Peters, 2006, pp. 282–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[25]Simpson, A. K., Elementary axioms for categories of classes, 14th Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, IEEE Computer Society Press, 1999, pp. 77–85.Google Scholar
[26]Warren, M. A., Coalgebras in a category of classes, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 146 (2007), no. 1, pp. 60–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar