Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below
Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
I can not edit Croatian black hole school, the edit button redirects me to the Homepage.
Charles Siegel created split sequence
started TCFT
eventually we should better reflect at the relevant nLab entries that Costello’s classification result of 2d TCFTs – proving the corresponding conjecture by Kontsevich – was the precurser of the proof of the full cobordism hypothesis: Hopkins and Lurie tried to generalize Costello’s proof (they had not actually heard of Baez-Dolan back then).
I made some edits to C-star-algebra and representation of a C-star-algebra.
Just got the following query from Harald Hanche-Olsen about the page separation axioms. As I’ve never seen that notation before either (but agree with Harald’s comments in both parts), I’m forwarding it here so that the person who first adopted it (Toby?) or others can chip in.
I hadn’t seen the notation for a neighbourhood before, but it looks like a reasonable notation that I might want to adapt. BUT it seems more appropriate for a neighbourhood of a point rather than a neighbourhood of a set. Wouldn’t or be more appropriate for that case? What is the rationale for the usage on that page?
edited the entry orthogonality a bit, for instance indicated that there are other meanings of orthogonality. This should really be a disambiguation page.
And what makes the category-theoretic notion of orthogonality not be merged with weak factorization system? And why is orthogonal factorization system the first example at orthogonality if in fact that imposes unique lifts, while in orthogonality only existence of lifts is required?
I think the entry-situation here deserves to be further harmonized.
Over at orthogonal subcategory problem, it’s not clear to me whether or not the “objects orthogonal to ” should be morphisms orthogonal to , or if it should mean objects of of such that is orthogonal to (where denotes the terminal object). (Hell, it could even mean objects that are the source of a map orthogonal to ). I was in the process of changing stuff to fit the first interpretation, but I rolled it back and decided to ask here.
If it should in fact be the second (or third) definition, I would definitely suggest changing the notation , which is extremely misleading, since that is the standard notation for the first notion.
stub for spin-statistics theorem. Just recording a first few references so far.
added to Lie infinity-groupoid a section on Circle Lie n-groupoids, i.e. those of the form , and their relation to Cech- , Deligne-, and de Rham cohomology.
Created G-delta subset of a topological space, and its snappier redirect: G-delta. (Technically, these ought to be , I guess, which de-mathemalises to Gδ but I preferred spelling the delta out in full, does that sound okay?).
This is mainly to record a result about completely regular spaces in which every point is a G-delta subset which relates to the result I put up on sequentially compact space which in turn is related to the question of when the curvaceous topology and functional topology of a Froelicher space agree.
since it was demanded at the “counterexamples”-page, I created 3-manifold. This made me create Poincare conjecture.
I find it striking that Hamilton’s Ricci flow program and Perelman’s proof by adding the dilaton hasn’t found more resonance in the String theory community. After all, this shows a deep fact about the renormalization group flow of non-critical strings on 3-dimensional targets with gravity and dilaton background.
I once chatted with Huisken and indicated that this suggests that there is a more general interesting mathematical problem where also the Kalb-Ramond field background is taken into account. I remember him being interested, but haven’t heard that anyone in this area has extended Perelman’s method to the full massles string background content. Has anyone?
felt like creating fat simplex in parallel to Bousfield-Kan map
counterexamples in algebra inspired (and largely copied from) this MO question since MO is a daft place to put that stuff and a page on the nLab seems better. (A properly indexed database would be even better, but I don’t feel like setting such up and don’t know of the existence of such a system)
I’ve added a result to the list at sequentially compact space which is an analogue of the more well-known one about compact Hausdorff spaces. This also relates to this MO question.
added to C-star algebra a stub section on the dagger-categorical formulation
Cleaned up Bell’s theorem a bit in my ongoing effort to better organize and clean up the quantum mechanics entries.
As a small step towards more information about representations of operator algebras and their physical interpretation in AQFT, I extraced states from operator algebras and added Fell’s theorem. This is a theorem that is often cited in the literature, but most times not with any specific name (often with no reference, either). But I think it is both justified and usefule to call it Fell’s theorem :-)
I got tired of making unmatched links to topological locale (aka spatial locale, or locale with enough points), so I wrote a stub.
started floating toc enriched category theory contents and added it to relevant entries
I am trying to remove the erroneous shifts in degree by that inevitably I have been making at simplicial skeleton and maybe at truncated.
So a Kan complex is the nerve of an -groupoid iff it is -coskeletal, I hope ;-)
At truncated in the examples-section i want to be claiming that the truncation adjunction in a general (oo,1)-topos is in the case of Grpd the -adjunction on Kan complexes. But I should be saying this better.
The mass of a physical system is its intrinsic energy.
I expect that Zoran will object to some of what I have written there (if not already to my one-sentence definition above), but since I cannot predict how, I look forward to his comments.
John Baez has erased our query complaining about disgusting picture at quasigroup, and left the picture. I like the theory of quasigroups but do not like to visit and contribute to sites dominated by strange will to decorate with self-proclaimed humour which is in fact tasteless.
added to CartSp a section that lists lots of notions of (generalized) geometry modeled on this category.
expanded categorical homotopy groups in an (infinity,1)-topos
added more details to the definition of the homotopy sheaves;
added a section on how the Joyal-Jardine homotopy sheaves of simplicial presheaves are a model for that.
I keep working on the entry now titled homotopy groups in an (infinity,1)-topos (used to be "homotopy groups of an oo-stack").
The following subsections I added
Geometric Pi_oo of the terminal object in a locally connected oo-topos
Geometric Pi_0 of a genral object in a locally connected topos
Examples (meaning: general examples, neither purely categorical nor geometrical, currently a discussion of simple examples that distinguish the two notions)
This all needs more work. But I'll stop for a moment and instead start now an entry on locally n-connected (oo,1)-toposes, which I need for further discussion here.
continued from here
my proposal:
Connes fusion is used to define fusion of positive energy representations of the loop group in * Antony Wassermann, Operator algebras and conformal field theory III (arXiv) and to define elliptic cohomology in * Stephan Stolz and Peter Teichner, What is an elliptic object? (link)
and removing the query box.
New entry to support the discussion with Urs about infinitesimally thickened topos.
Some of you may remember that a while ago I had started wondering how one could characterize geometric morphisms of toposes that would exhibit as an “infinitesimal thickening” of .
Instead of coming to a defnite conclusion on this one, I worked with a concrete example that should be an example of this situation: that of the Gorthendieck toposes on the sites CartSp and ThCartSp of cartesian spaces and infinitesimally thickened cartesian spaces.
But now I went through my proofs for that situation and tried to extract which abstract properties of these sites they actually depend on. Unless I am mixed up, it seems to me now that the essential property is is a coreflective subcategory of and that in the respective adjunction
buth functors preserve covers.
So maybe it makes sense to take this as a definition: a geometric morphism of Grothendieck toposes is an infinitesimal thickening if it comes from such a coreflective embedding of sites.
Details of this, with more comments on the meaning of it all and detailed proofs, I have now typed into my page on path oo-functors in the section Infinitesimal path oo-groupoids.
added to differential bimodule the basic example, thanks to Zoran
I added a disambiguation note to conjunction, since most of the links to that page actually wanted something else. Then I changed those links to something else: logical conjunction (not yet extant).
An Internet and dictionary search suggests that there is no analogous danger for disjunction (also not yet extant).
Wrote two-sided bar construction. There is a lot to add, but I added a query box under the subsection “Delooping machines” which I’m hoping someone like Mike could answer.
Moved the subsection on Hilbert space quantum mechanics from quantum information to quantum mechanics as had been suggested by someone in a query box.
I’ve created mate, but I can’t get my nice fancy diagrams to display – I just get the source. Help! What have I done wrong?
Tim van Beek has written about unbounded posets at partial order.
Where is this used?
In another thread I came up with a definition of a local isomorphism in a site, working from the definition of a local homeomorphism/diffeomorphism in Top/Diff respectively (with the open cover pretopology in both cases). Then I find that there is a page local isomorphism talking about maps in presheaf categories: such a map is a local isomorphism if becomes an isomorphism on applying the sheafification functor . To quote my definition again
Definition: Let (C,J) be a site (J a pretopology). A map is a J-local isomorphism if there are covering families and such that for each the restriction is an isomorphism onto some .
I don’t claim, in the time I have available, to understand the implications of the definition at local isomorphism. I just wonder how it relates to concrete notions like local homeomorphisms (let us work with Top and open covers as covering families). Is a local homeomorphism, after applying Yoneda, a local isomorphism? Does a local isomorphism in the image of Yoneda come from a local homeomorphism? I suspect the answer is yes. Now for the biggie: can a local isomorphism be characterised in terms as basic as my definition as quoted? With my definition one avoids dealing with functor categories (and so size issues, to some extent: is very big), so if they are equivalent, I’d like to put this somewhere.
Obviously we can take the site in my definition to be a presheaf category with the canonical pretopology or something, and potentially recover the definition at local isomorphism, but for the ease of connecting with geometric ideas, I prefer something simpler.
Any thoughts?
Created small site and large site of an object in a site, as a spin off from discussion around petit topos. The latter is so named because large site is taken for sites that happen to be large. The content of this page, however, looks as though it could go somewhere discussing sheaves.
Urs has erased the sentence explanining the purpose of the entry. Why ??
"In fact not only that it is a good survey but it has a nice bibliography. The main plan of this entry is to build a hyperlinked bibliography of the above article!"
Started thinking about smooth paths.
(Incidentally, David, do you want query boxes added to your web? And would you like to change the CSS for off-web links from those boxes to some nice colour?)
I felt the need to write down what it means for a subspace to have the Baire property, so I did.
A discussion of the cartesian closed monoidal structure on an (oo,1)-topos is currently missing on the nLab.
I started making a first step in the direction of including it:
at model structure on simplicial presheaves I added a section Closed monoidal structure with a pointer to Toen’s lectures (where the following is an exercise) and a statement and proof of how is a monoidal model category by the Cartesian product.
as a lemma for that I added to Quillen bifunctor the statement that on cofib generated model cats a Quillen bifunctor property is checked already on generating cofibrations (here).
More later…
Based on recent discussions here primarily with Harry and Urs, I added a proof at co-Yoneda lemma in terms of extranaturality, and some didactic material over at adjunction bridging hom-functors to units/counits, involving some but hopefully not too much overlap with related material Urs recently added at adjoint functor. Still need to work in some links.
Created paracategory and Kleene equality.
I created cylinder on a presheaf and will fill it in more as I read through Ast308. I plan on adding more stuff as I get to it (things about test categories and localisers, etc.).
This is similar but not the same as cylinder object, since even though it is specialized to presheaf categories, we don’t require any notion of a weak equivalence a priori.
I have quietly submitted the beginning of an article on "surface diagrams" on my web. There is still quite a lot left to write up, and it needs to be formatted more prettily, but I thought I'd throw what I have (so far) out there.
I moved the characterization of pointwise kan extensions as those preserved by representable functors to the top (of the section on pointwise kan extensions) and made it the definition (since there was no unified definition before). This is for aesthetic reasons. Since being pointwise is a property, I like that this property has a definition independent of the computational model we’re using.
Are there size issues that I might be glossing over?
I added a paragraph about to countable choice
I think the definition of the Grothendieck construction was wrong. The explicit definition was right, but the description in terms of a generalized universal bundle didn’t work out to that, if by “the category of pointed categories” was meant for the functors to preserve the points, which is the usual meaning of a category of pointed objects. I corrected this by using the lax slice. Since while I was writing it I got confused with all the op’s, I decided that the reader might have similar trouble, so I changed it to do the covariant version first and then the contravariant.
I expanded the Examples-section at petit topos and included a reference to Lawvere’s “Axiomatic cohesion”, which contains some discussion of some aspects of a characterization of “gros” vs “petit” (which I wouldn’t have noticed were it not for a talk by Peter Johnstone).
I am thinking that it should be possible to give more and more formal discussion here, using Lawvere’s article and potentially other articles. But that’s it from me for the time being.
Swapped the order of the propositions that small limits commute with small limits and that limits commute with right adjoints, which allowed me to give a proof that small limits commute with small limits by citing the result on right adjoints and the characterization of the limit as right adjoint to the constant diagram functor.
Started the article dependent choice, and did some editing at COSHEP to make clearer to myself the argument that COSHEP + (1 is projective) implies dependent choice. It’s not clear to me that the projectivity of 1 is removable in that argument; maybe it is.
Started a stub at family of sets. This should also explain concepts like a family of subsets of a given set or a family of groups. And how to formalise them all in material and structural set theories, predicative foundations, internally in indexed categories, etc.
wrote an Idea-section at quantum field theory
An anonymous coward put something blank (or possibly some spam that somebody else blanked within half an hour) at Hausdorff dimension, so I put in a stub.
I moved the proof of the claim that the Segal-Brylinski “differetiable Lie group cohomology” is that computed in the (oo,1)-topos of oo-Lie groupoids from the entry group cohomology to the entry Lie infinity-groupoid and expanded the details of the proof considerably.
See this new section.
Towards the end I could expand still a bit more, but I am not allowed to work anymore today… :-)
I’ve added a bit about these to free monoid. (These are the computer scientists’ stacks, not the geometers’ stacks!) There is a query about queues too; I’ve forgotten something and can’t reconstruct it.
Changed a page title from topological topos to Johnstone’s topological topos. Urs said I should call for help when making a name change, so that someone can clear the cache to get the change to propagate properly.
started a disambiguation page basis