home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: sci.math.research
- Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!usc!sdd.hp.com!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!news.cso.uiuc.edu!dan
- From: Alejandro <rivero@cc.unizar.es>
- Subject: Re: points
- References: <ARA.92Dec25015834@camelot.ai.mit.edu>
- Nntp-Posting-Host: m14724.unizar.es
- Message-ID: <1992Dec29.130930.26249@ulrik.uio.no>
- Originator: dan@symcom.math.uiuc.edu
- X-Xxdate: Tue, 29 Dec 92 14:06:58 GMT
- Sender: Daniel Grayson <dan@math.uiuc.edu>
- X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
- X-Submissions-To: sci-math-research@uiuc.edu
- Organization: ftuz
- X-Administrivia-To: sci-math-research-request@uiuc.edu
- Approved: Daniel Grayson <dan@math.uiuc.edu>
- Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 13:09:30 GMT
- X-Xxmessage-Id: <A7660C0281039318@m14724.unizar.es>
- Lines: 24
-
- I had one or two questions to add to Adler ones, perhaps
- some naughty cathegorist there can answer easily.
-
- First, is the category of conmutative C*-algebras a topos?
- Being as it is the dual (or it was the antiequivalente?) of the
- category of compact topological spaces, it would be a topos or sort of, am I
- correct?
-
- Second, what about the category of all C* algebras, this is, including the no
- conmmutative algebras? Following Connes, you can use ANY C* algebra to make
- diferential geometry. And you have "points" and "arcs" (R-->M or dually
- C(M)-->R). This would have a categorial counterpart.
-
- Third, which is the difference from the categorial point of view of the two
- categories? This would be: Which is the correct categorial formulation of
- conmuttativity? But I m not sure if there are more diffs.
-
- I dont know if categorists are or not in the side of Connes but I think they
- would have something to say about all this stuff of non conmutative geometry,
- manifolds etc...
-
- Alejandro Rivero
- rivero@cc.unizar.es
-
-