### Beaucoup de typos corrigés. Il faudrait relire la preuve du Lemme 4.6.5

parent 02a5625a
This diff is collapsed.
No preview for this file type
 ... ... @@ -724,7 +724,7 @@ We can now prove the following proposition, which is the key result of this sect Conversely, if $E$ is an $(n+1)$\nbd{}base of $C$, then we can define an $(n+1)$\nbd{}functor $C \to \E_E^*$ that sends $E$, seen as a subset of $C_{n+1}$, to $E$, seen as a subset of $(\E^*_E)_{n+1}$ (and which is obviously the identity on cells of dimension strictly lower than $n+1$). The fact that $C$ and $\E^*$ have $E$ as an $(n+1)$\nbd{}base implies that this $(n+1)$\nbd{}functor $C \to \E^*$ is the inverse of the canonical one $\E^* \to C$. \end{proof} \begin{paragr} \begin{paragr}\label{paragr:cextlowdimension} We extend the definitions and the results from \ref{def:cellularextension} to \ref{prop:criterionnbasis} to the case $n=-1$ by saying that a $(-1)$-cellular extension is simply a set $\Sigma$ (which is the set of indeterminates) and $(-1)\Cat^+$ is the category of sets. Since a $0\Cat$ is also the category of sets, it makes sense to define the functors ... ...
Markdown is supported
0% or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!