10

Forcing over a partial order $P$ can be viewed in a category theoretic sense as constructing the presheaf topos ${\bf Set}^{P^{op}}$ over the partial order (viewed as a category) then passing through the double negation transformation to recover a Boolean topos instead of an intuitionistic one, as explained by Sridhar Ramesh in the comments here.

It is not entirely clear to me whether this process is (pseudo-)functorial, i.e. if there is a (pseudo-) functor $\mathsf{Force}:{\bf Pos}\to\mathfrak{Top}$ which takes a poset to the double negation of its presheaf topos. In particular I believe all we would need is for $\neg\neg$ to be functorial. This leads me to two questions:

  1. Is $\neg\neg$ functorial?
  2. If the answer to 1 is yes, does $\mathsf{Force}:{\bf Pos}\to\mathfrak{Top}$ have a left or right adjoint?

Below is a suggestion of how $\mathsf{Force}$ might be constructed, apologies if any glaring errors are made. The Yoneda embedding $y_P$ takes a poset $P$ to the subcategory $y_P(P)\hookrightarrow{\bf Set}^{P^{op}}$ of representable presheaves, so we can take a functor $F:P\to P'$ between poset categories to a functor $y_F:y_P(P)\to y_{P'}(P')$ between these subcategories by defining $$y_F\big({\bf Hom}_P(-,X)\big)={\bf Hom}_{P'}(-,F(X)),$$ $$y_F\big({\bf Hom}_P(-,f)\big)={\bf Hom}_{P'}(-,F(f)).$$ ${\bf Set}^{P^{op}}$ is presentable as colimits over $y_P(P)$, so I believe this functor extends to a functor (up to iso) $\overline y_F:{\bf Set}^{P^{op}}\to{\bf Set}^{P'^{op}}$ given by representing each presheaf $G\in{\bf Ob}_{{\bf Set}^{P^{op}}}$ as a colimit of some functor $G^\star:\mathcal{G}\to y_P(P)$ over representable presheaves $$G=\varinjlim_{X\in{\bf Ob}_\mathcal{G}}G^\star(X)$$ and then sending $G$ to the colimit of the image of these representable presheaves under $y_F$, $$\overline y_F(G)=\varinjlim_{X\in{\bf Ob}_\mathcal{G}}y_F(G^\star(X)),$$ and sending a natural transformation $\alpha:G\Rightarrow G'\in{\bf Hom}_{{\bf Set}^{P^{op}}}$ to the natural transformation $\overline y_F(\alpha):\overline y_F(G)\Rightarrow \overline y_F(G')$ given by $$\overline y_F (\alpha)=[\{\alpha_Z\circ\nu^X_Z\}_{Z\in{\bf Ob}_P}]_{X\in{\bf Ob}_P}:\varinjlim_{X\in{\bf Ob}_\mathcal{G}}y_F(G^\star(X))\Longrightarrow\varinjlim_{Y\in{\bf Ob}_{\mathcal{G}'}}y_F(G'^\star(Y)),$$ where $\nu^X_Z:y_F(G^\star(X))(Z)\to\varinjlim_{X\in{\bf Ob}_P}y_F(G^\star(X))(Z)$ is the coprojection for $y_F(G^\star(X))(Z)$.

I believe we thusly have a functor $y:{\bf Pos}\to\mathfrak{Top}$ given by $$y(P)={\bf Set}^{P^{op}},$$ $$y(F:P\to P')=\overline y_F,$$ so if $\neg_\mathcal{E}\neg_\mathcal{E}:\Omega\to\Omega$ in a topos $\mathcal{E}$ extends to an endofunctor $(\neg\neg)_\mathcal{E}:\mathcal{E}\to\mathcal{E}$ we may be able to extend to an endofunctor $\neg\neg:\mathfrak{Top}\to\mathfrak{Top}$ and define $\mathsf{Force}=\neg\neg\circ y$. Does this work out?

Alec Rhea
  • 9,009
  • 3
    Have you had a look at MacLane and Moerdijk's "Sheaves in geometry and logic"? They have a whole sectin about this. – Andrej Bauer Jan 19 '19 at 08:45
  • @AndrejBauer I have not, I’ll see if the library has a copy tomorrow — thank you for the reference. – Alec Rhea Jan 19 '19 at 08:50
  • @AndrejBauer Ah, a google search revealed an online pdf version of the book (http://atondwal.org/Sheaves_in_Geometry_and_Logic__MacLane_Moerdijk.pdf) — could you point me to the section on this material? – Alec Rhea Jan 19 '19 at 09:13
  • 1
    Page 277, section VI.2 on the Cohen topos. You should also look up (somewhere) the fact that the construction $C \mapsto \mathbf{Set}^{C^\mathrm{op}}$ is functorial in the site $C$ (so you don't have to do that part with your bare hands). After that it's "obvious" that the construction is functorial. – Andrej Bauer Jan 19 '19 at 09:19
  • @AndrejBauer Much appreciated! – Alec Rhea Jan 19 '19 at 09:25
  • 2
    @AndrejBauer huh, so $P \mapsto (P,\neg\neg)$ is a functor from posets to sites? Nice. I do wonder if it's more generally true for non-posetal categories. However, Alec was probably wanting something like a functor $\neg\neg\colon Topos \to Topos$. I can see how this is likely true for logical functors of toposes, but for geometric morphisms? – David Roberts Jan 19 '19 at 10:43
  • @DavidRoberts: now you make me worried. I through it was also functorial in $\lnot\lnot$ (by analogy to reflection from Heyting algebras to Boolean algebras) but maybe I am mistaken. I thought the OP wanted to make it a functor from posets to toposes only. – Andrej Bauer Jan 19 '19 at 10:59
  • @AndrejBauer I chose ${\bf Pos}$ as a domain since forcing over a poset is the only instance of forcing for which I'm aware of a direct category theoretic analogue, however I don't see a reason the above construction of $y$ couldn't be defined on all of ${\bf Cat}$. It seems that the above reference discusses essentially the construction $y$ above, but David is correct that I would like a functor $\neg\neg:\mathfrak{Top}\to\mathfrak{Top}$ which we can postcompose with $y$ to yield a 'forcing functor'. – Alec Rhea Jan 19 '19 at 11:06
  • Well, it's probably easier to check that double negation is functorial than it is to look for a reference. (As David points out, one needs to pay attention to morphisms.) – Andrej Bauer Jan 19 '19 at 11:08
  • By the way, forcing usually has one last step, namely a quotient by an ultrafilter. This step is also discussed by MacLane and Moerdijk. – Andrej Bauer Jan 19 '19 at 11:09
  • @AndrejBauer I agree, but I thought it might be obvious to someone here/common knowledge that it was functorial. Thanks again for the assistance, I'll go through MacLane and Moerdijk tonight/tomorrow and see if I can check that $\neg\neg$ is functorial. – Alec Rhea Jan 19 '19 at 11:10
  • 1
    But it is common knowledge that it is functorial, which is precisely why you shouldn't trust the rumours. – Andrej Bauer Jan 19 '19 at 11:11
  • @AndrejBauer Hahah, I'll have to see if I can bring my knowledge up to the common point then. – Alec Rhea Jan 19 '19 at 11:12
  • @AndrejBauer It seems that in a topos the negation of an object $A$ is defined as $\emptyset^A$, and since (I believe) fixing a base $X$ for exponentiation in a category $\mathcal{C}$ with finite products and exponentials defines a contravariant functor $X^-:\mathcal{C}^{op}\to\mathcal{C}$ sending $f:C\to C'$ to the currying of $\epsilon_{X,C'}\circ(1_{X^{C'}}\times f)$, double negation should define an endofunctor if the opposite category supports its own notion of negation for us to 'double' with. I'll work more on this tomorrow, it's getting early here so I may be overlooking something. – Alec Rhea Jan 19 '19 at 12:53
  • 1
    I'm not sure how it affects the categorical set-up here, but there are other senses in which there is no computable nor even Borel functor from models of set theory to their corresponding forcing extensions. See my upcoming talk at http://jdh.hamkins.org/forcing-as-a-computational-process-cambridge-februrary-2019/. The paper is not yet released, but it is joint with Russell Miller, Kameryn Williams and myself. – Joel David Hamkins Jan 19 '19 at 14:25
  • @AlecRhea: That's not how the passage from presheaves to $\lnot\lnot$-sheaves work. You'd rather have to make sure that the sheafification functor is functorial in the site. – Andrej Bauer Jan 19 '19 at 16:45
  • 1
    @JoelDavidHamkins: we're in the realm of Grothendieck toposes. Computability's flown out of the window a long time ago. – Andrej Bauer Jan 19 '19 at 16:46
  • 2
    Well, anyway, the lack of a functorial Borel map selecting generic filters for the countable models of set theory is interesting. It shows that the quotient step you mention is inherently difficult to achieve in a uniform way. – Joel David Hamkins Jan 19 '19 at 17:29
  • @JoelDavidHamkins That is fascinating, much appreciated -- ultrafilters have various categorical interpretations (https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/ultrafilter#categorytheoretic_interpretations) and a topos supports the usual categorical notion of a quotient (coequalizer), so it seems like we should be able to 'quotient by an ultrafilter on a presheaf category' inside the category of categories (modulo size issues), so I wonder where the difficulty arises -- perhaps in a choice of ultrafilter? – Alec Rhea Jan 20 '19 at 20:00
  • @AndrejBauer Yes, it seems I'm not understanding something correctly here -- are we somehow adding a gluing condition to the presheaves when we pass through the double negation transformation to turn them into sheaves? It isn't clear to me that the boolean topos we recover is necessarily full of sheaves and not still presheaves, but this is probably my own ignorance (I'm still working through M&M). – Alec Rhea Jan 20 '19 at 20:03
  • @JoelDavidHamkins: that's an interesting point. I didn't know there was no functorial choice of ultrafilters. But since nobody ever cares which ultrafilter is used, there should be a way to cheat by not chosing one. Can we maybe use all ultrafilters to make lots and lots of quotients, in a functorial way? – Andrej Bauer Jan 20 '19 at 20:32
  • That is an interesting idea; I'll have to think about it. – Joel David Hamkins Jan 21 '19 at 11:29
  • @AndrejBauer It was my ignorance indeed! To make sure I understand things correctly now: every topos is a site for its dense topology which is usually denoted $\neg\neg$, so if we can show that the 'sheafification' functor for the dense topology is functorial in its site (topos) then we'll have an endofunctor on $\mathfrak{Top}$ that 'sheafifies' each topos in its dense topology, which is the desired piece of the construction? – Alec Rhea Jan 22 '19 at 20:47

0 Answers0