Not signed in (Sign In)

Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

  • Sign in using OpenID

Site Tag Cloud

(0 2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories accessible adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry anomalies arithmetic arithmetic-geometry beauty bundles calculus categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-theory cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive constructive-mathematics cosmology deformation-theory derived-geometry descent differential differential-cohomology differential-geometry duality education elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration foundations functional-analysis functor galois-theory gauge-theory gebra general topology geometric geometric-quantization geometry goodwillie-calculus gravity group-theory higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-topos-theory history homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory hypercovers index-theory infinity integration-theory k-theory kan lie lie-theory limit limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic manifolds mathematics measure measure-theory modal-logic model model-category-theory monoidal monoidal-category monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology n-groups newpage nonassociative noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operator operator-algebra order-theory philosophy physics pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory stack string string-theory subobject supergeometry symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topological topology topos topos-theory tqft type type-theory web

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to nForum
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeDec 11th 2011

    at compact object in an (infinity,1)-category I have added the definition and stated the examples: the κ\kappa-compact objects in (,1)Cat(\infty,1)Cat/Grpd\infty Grpd are the essentially κ\kappa-small (,1)(\infty,1)-categories/groupoids.

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeApr 16th 2012

    How are κ\kappa-compact objects in a locally presentable (,1)(\infty,1)-category related to κ\kappa-compact objects in a combinatorial model category that presents it? Does one property imply the other? Are they equivalent? I’m willing to take κ\kappa to be arbitrarily large.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 26th 2012
    • (edited Apr 26th 2012)

    I have put a pointer to your MO discussion with Jacob Lurie on this question into the entry compact object in an (infinity,1)-category .

    By coincidence, right now I have started wanting to know more about the class of objects XSh (SmthMfd)X \in Sh_\infty(SmthMfd) such that Hom(X,)Hom(X,-) preserves the \infty-colimit

    BU:=lim nBU(n) \mathbf{B} U := \lim_{\to_n} \mathbf{B} U(n)

    over the smooth moduli stacks of unitary bundles.

    I realize that I haven’t thought about such issues enough.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeApr 26th 2012

    Thanks. If I have a chance to work out the details in his rather sketchy answer, I’ll put them on the nLab page too.

    I am of course interested in this for purposes of modeling univalent universes with object classifiers. If the corresponding statement for relatively κ\kappa-compact morphisms is true for κ\kappa sufficiently large, then that means the universes we construct in model categories, which classify fiberwise κ\kappa-small fibrations, actually do present object classifiers of relatively κ\kappa-compact morphisms in the (,1)(\infty,1)-topos being presented. Which is what we expect, of course.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeApr 27th 2012

    How is the \infty-colimit

    BU:=lim nBU(n) \mathbf{B} U := \lim_{\to_n} \mathbf{B} U(n)

    different to the ordinary colimit?

    I ask because I was considering a similar problem (compact objects) in the mere (2,1)-category of Lie groupoids and anafunctors, in particular with regards to a similar colimit of classifying spaces. I conjecture (based on some other work) that a proper Lie groupoid such that the orbit space X 0/X 1X_0/X_1 is compact is sufficient to preserve the colimit. But perhaps I should be thinking of colimits in a (2,1)-sense, no just an ordinary colimit.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 27th 2012
    • (edited Apr 27th 2012)

    Every hocolim is computed as an ordinary colimit over a suitable diagram, so the question is how much one has to bend over backwards to massage this into a “suitable diagram”. And here the answer is indeed: not much at all.

    The hocolim is computed as the colim over a projectively cofibrant diagram. A cotower diagram is projectively cofibrant if all morphisms are cofibrations and the first and hence all objects are cofibrant. So it’s sufficient here to use an injective model structure on simplicial presheaves and then everything goes through very naively.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 27th 2012

    Sorry if that reply was too terse. It’s past 2am here and I should call it quits. Let’s talk about it tomorrow :-)