scholarly journals Retraction Note to: Understanding the Small Object Argument

2013 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 683-683
Author(s):  
Richard Garner
2018 ◽  
Vol 167 (3) ◽  
pp. 489-504 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. ROSICKÝ

AbstractA. Avilés and C. Brech proved an intriguing result about the existence and uniqueness of certain injective Boolean algebras or Banach spaces. Their result refines the standard existence and uniqueness of saturated models. They express a wish to obtain a unified approach in the context of category theory. We provide this in the framework of weak factorisation systems. Our basic tool is the fat small object argument.


2008 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 211-246 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jiří Adámek ◽  
Michel Hébert ◽  
Lurdes Sousa

2019 ◽  
Vol 84 (4) ◽  
pp. 1348-1367
Author(s):  
HENRIK FORSSELL ◽  
PETER LEFANU LUMSDAINE

AbstractClassically, any structure for a signature ${\rm{\Sigma }}$ may be completed to a model of a desired regular theory ${T}}$ by means of the chase construction or small object argument. Moreover, this exhibits ${\rm{Mod}}\left(T)$ as weakly reflective in ${\rm{Str}}\left( {\rm{\Sigma }} \right)$.We investigate this in the constructive setting. The basic construction is unproblematic; however, it is no longer a weak reflection. Indeed, we show that various reflectivity principles for models of regular theories are equivalent to choice principles in the ambient set theory. However, the embedding of a structure into its chase-completion still satisfies a conservativity property, which suffices for applications such as the completeness of regular logic with respect to Tarski (i.e., set) models.Unlike most constructive developments of predicate logic, we do not assume that equality between symbols in the signature is decidable. While in this setting, we also give a version of one classical lemma which is trivial over discrete signatures but more interesting here: the abstraction of constants in a proof to variables.


2008 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 247-285 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Garner

2014 ◽  
Vol 254 ◽  
pp. 49-68 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Makkai ◽  
J. Rosický ◽  
L. Vokřínek

2008 ◽  
Vol 319 (6) ◽  
pp. 2518-2532 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sergio Estrada ◽  
Juan González-Férez ◽  
Leandro Marín

Author(s):  
Sterling P. Newberry

The beautiful three dimensional representation of small object surfaces by the SEM leads one to search for ways to open up the sample and look inside. Could this be the answer to a better microscopy for gross biological 3-D structure? We know from X-Ray microscope images that Freeze Drying and Critical Point Drying give promise of adequately preserving gross structure. Can we slice such preparations open for SEM inspection? In general these preparations crush more readily than they slice. Russell and Dagihlian got around the problem by “deembedding” a section before imaging. This some what defeats the advantages of direct dry preparation, thus we are reluctant to accept it as the final solution to our problem. Alternatively, consider fig 1 wherein a freeze dried onion root has a window cut in its surface by a micromanipulator during observation in the SEM.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document