Any Grothendieck topology on * χ* we are discussing in the following has at least one sheaf for it. Therefore, we can assume any sieve

*on*

**I***satisfying*

**U***.*

**∨ I =U**Let * J* be a Grothendieck topology on

*Then,*

**χ.****J{U _{K}} = {↓ U_{K}}**

for **K = 0, 1, 2, or 3**

Discussing about **J(U _{∞}) **

for * k = 0, 1, 2, 3, ∞*, define sieves

*on*

**I**_{K}*by*

**U**_{K}

**I**_{K}:= ↓ U_{K}Followings are all possible sieves on * U_{∞}*.

**I _{12} = I_{1} ∪ I_{2}, I_{13} = I_{1} ∪ I_{3}, I_{23} = I_{2} ∪ I_{3}, I_{123} = I_{1} ∪ I_{2} ∪ I_{3}**

Now, we define two Grothendieck topologies * J_{0}* and

**J**_{1}* J_{0}* is defined as

*=*

**J**_{0}**(****U**_{K}**)***, for*

**{****I**_{K}**}***, or*

**K = 0, 1, 2, 3**

**∞*** J_{1}* is defined as

*(*

**J**_{1}*) =*

**U**_{K}*, for*

**{****I**_{K}**}***or*

**K = 0, 1, 2, 3***=*

**J**_{1}**(****U**_{∞}**)***,*

**{I**_{∞}

**I**_{123}**}**We can easily show that any Grothendieck topology on * χ *that has at least one sheaf on

*other than*

**χ***contains*

**J**_{0}*. In other words,*

**J**_{1}*is the smallest Grothendieck topology on*

**J**_{1 }*next to*

**χ***.*

**J**_{0}The diagram shows the unique extension from * I_{123}* to

**I**_{∞}

So, we have a necessary and sufficient condition for a monetary value measure to be a * J_{1-}sheaf*.

* 1.0 Ψ* becomes a sheaf for

*iff*

**J**_{1}

**∀ a, a’, b, b’, c, c’ ∈ ℜ****g _{1} (a – c’) + c’ = g_{2} (b – a’) + a’= g_{3} (c – b’) + b’**

**⇒ (c’ = f _{1} (b – c) + c) ∧ (a’ = (f_{2} (c – a) + a) ∧ (b’ = f_{3} (a – b) + b)**

Entropic value measurement: Let * P* be a probability measure on

*defined by*

**Ω***and*

**P****= (p**_{1}, p_{2}, p_{3})*be the entropic value measured by*

**Ψ****Ψ ^{V}_{U}(X) := 1/λ log E^{P} [e^{λX} | V]**

Then from

**Ψ ^{1}_{∞} (a, b, c) = 1/λ log E^{P }[(e^{λa}, e^{λb}, e^{λc}) | U_{1}]**

**=****(a, 1/λ log (p _{2}e^{λb} + p_{3}e^{λc})/(p_{2} + p_{3}), 1/λ 1/λ log (p_{2}e^{λb} + p_{3}e^{λc})/(p_{2} + p_{3}))**

the corresponding six functions from part 3 now are,

**f _{1}(x) = 1/λ log (p_{2}e^{λx} + p_{3})/(p_{2} + p_{3})**

**f _{2}(x) = 1/λ log (p_{3}e^{λx} + p_{1})/(p_{3} + p_{1})**

**f _{3}(x) = 1/λ log (p_{1}e^{λx} + p_{2})/(p_{1} +p_{2})**

**g _{1}(x) = 1/λ log (p_{1}e^{λx} + p_{2} + p_{3})**

**g _{2}(x) = 1/λ log (p_{1} + p_{2}e^{λx} + p_{3})**

**g _{3}(x) = 1/λ log (p_{1} + p_{2} + p_{3}e^{λx})**

So, the question is if the entropic value measure is a * J_{1-}sheaf*. The necessary and sufficient condition becomes like

**p _{1}e^{λa} + (1 – p_{1})e^{λc’} = p_{2}e^{λb} + (1 – p_{2})e^{λa’} = p_{3}e^{λc} + (1 – p_{3})e^{λb’} := Z**

**⇒ Z = p _{1}e^{λa} + p_{2}e^{λb} + p_{3}e^{λc}**

However, this does not hold true in general. On the corollary, any set of axioms on * Ω = {1, 2, 3}* that accepts concave monetary value measures is not complete.

The concept of monetary value measures through the language of category theory is defined as an appropriate class of presheaves over a set of σ-fields as a poset. The resulting monetary value measures satisfy naturally so-called time consistency condition as well as dynamic programming principle. Next, we saw how a concrete shape of the largest Grothendieck topology for which monetary value measures satisfying given axioms become sheaves. By using sheafification functors, for any monetary value measure, it is possible to construct its best approximation of the monetary value measure that satisfies given axioms in case the axioms are complete.