Not signed in

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

• Username
• Password
• Remember me

• Sign in using OpenID
• Remember me

• Forgot your password?
• Apply for membership

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry book bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology definitions deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration foundation foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nforum nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pages pasting 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 schemes set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory stack string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft type type-theory universal variational-calculus

1. • CommentRowNumber1.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeJun 14th 2020
   • (edited Jun 14th 2020)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexam giving this an entry of its own, split off from _[[motivic homotopy theory]]_. Nothing much here yet, just a bare minimum so far <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/Tate+sphere/1">v1</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Tate+sphere">current</a>

   am giving this an entry of its own, split off from motivic homotopy theory.

   Nothing much here yet, just a bare minimum so far

   v1, current

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeJun 14th 2020
   • (edited Jun 14th 2020)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexIncidentally, what is the right way to say "complement" $V \setminus \{x\}$ more generally in a topos, for a general pointed object $V$? I suppose: the union of all subobjects $U \hookrightarrow V$ such that we have a Cartesian square $$ \array{ \varnothing &\longrightarrow& \ast \\ \big\downarrow && \big\downarrow{\mathrlap{{}^x}} \\ U &\hookrightarrow& V } $$ Not a big deal, I suppose, but does anyone discuss Tate spheres in this generality?

   Incidentally, what is the right way to say “complement” $V \setminus \{x\}$ more generally in a topos, for a general pointed object $V$?

   I suppose: the union of all subobjects $U \hookrightarrow V$ such that we have a Cartesian square

   $$\array{ \varnothing &\longrightarrow& \ast \\ \big\downarrow && \big\downarrow{\mathrlap{{}^x}} \\ U &\hookrightarrow& V }$$

   Not a big deal, I suppose, but does anyone discuss Tate spheres in this generality?

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeJun 27th 2020
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexI am being dumb, please help: Given a monomorphism between 0-truncated objects in an $\infty$-topos, what's the abstract argument (not via simplicial presheaves) that its homotopy cofiber is also 0-truncated?

   I am being dumb, please help:

   Given a monomorphism between 0-truncated objects in an $\infty$-topos, what’s the abstract argument (not via simplicial presheaves) that its homotopy cofiber is also 0-truncated?

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorjalfy
   • CommentTimeJun 27th 2020
   • (edited Jun 27th 2020)
   • PermaLink
   Author: jalfy
   Format: MarkdownItexIf $f : X \to Y$ is a monomorphism, then its pushout along $X \to pt$ is a monomorphism. That is, the map $pt \to Z$ is $(-1)$-truncated where $Z$ is the cofiber of $f$. A map is $(-1)$-truncated by definition if its fibers are $(-1)$-truncated, so $\Omega(Z)$ is $-1$-truncated. In other words $Z$ is $0$-truncated.

   If $f : X \to Y$ is a monomorphism, then its pushout along $X \to pt$ is a monomorphism. That is, the map $pt \to Z$ is $(-1)$-truncated where $Z$ is the cofiber of $f$. A map is $(-1)$-truncated by definition if its fibers are $(-1)$-truncated, so $\Omega(Z)$ is $-1$-truncated. In other words $Z$ is $0$-truncated.

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeJun 27th 2020
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexThat's just the homotopy fiber at the basepoint. Why is that sufficient?

   That’s just the homotopy fiber at the basepoint. Why is that sufficient?

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorjalfy
   • CommentTimeJun 27th 2020
   • (edited Jun 27th 2020)
   • PermaLink
   Author: jalfy
   Format: MarkdownItexSorry, was thinking of the pointed setting. So we have to show $\Omega(Z, g(y))$ is weakly contractible for every $y \in Y \setminus X$. We can at least see that it is discrete as follows: Note $g : Y \to Z$ is 0-truncated, as the pushout of $X \to \pt$. So its fiber $F_y$ over any point $g(y) \in Z$ ($y \in Y$) is $0$-truncated. We may write \[\Omega(Z, g(y)) = \{g(y)\} \times_Z \{g(y)\} = \{g(y)\} \times_Z Y \times_Y \{y\} = F_y \times_Y \{y\}.\] This is a pullback of $0$-truncated objects, hence is $0$-truncated. Somehow I also don't see a clean argument that it is $(-1)$-truncated though.

   Sorry, was thinking of the pointed setting.

   So we have to show $\Omega(Z, g(y))$ is weakly contractible for every $y \in Y \setminus X$. We can at least see that it is discrete as follows:

   Note $g : Y \to Z$ is 0-truncated, as the pushout of $X \to \pt$. So its fiber $F_y$ over any point $g(y) \in Z$ ($y \in Y$) is $0$-truncated. We may write

   $$\Omega(Z, g(y)) = \{g(y)\} \times_Z \{g(y)\} = \{g(y)\} \times_Z Y \times_Y \{y\} = F_y \times_Y \{y\}.$$

   This is a pullback of $0$-truncated objects, hence is $0$-truncated.

   Somehow I also don’t see a clean argument that it is $(-1)$-truncated though.

7. • CommentRowNumber7.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeJun 27th 2020
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexThanks. Notice that I really do need this for sheaves, where we cannot argue with global points. Specifically in view of the topic of this thread I am looking at a class of examples where the pushout has only two global points in the first place, hence is far from being a [[concrete sheaf]]. Incidentally, it's trivial to see the statement in terms of prsentation by an injective model structure, using that the (-1)-truncated morphism is then represented by a monomorphism of presheaves, which is hence a cofibration of simplicial presheaves. But it feels like this statement should have a quick intrinsic argument.

   Thanks. Notice that I really do need this for sheaves, where we cannot argue with global points.

   Specifically in view of the topic of this thread I am looking at a class of examples where the pushout has only two global points in the first place, hence is far from being a concrete sheaf.

   Incidentally, it’s trivial to see the statement in terms of prsentation by an injective model structure, using that the (-1)-truncated morphism is then represented by a monomorphism of presheaves, which is hence a cofibration of simplicial presheaves.

   But it feels like this statement should have a quick intrinsic argument.

8. • CommentRowNumber8.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeJul 28th 2020
   • (edited Jul 29th 2020)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexLate night thought: Do Tate spheres represent configuration spaces of points? For consider, in the smooth category (i.e. in the sheaf topos over the site of smooth manifolds), morphisms from Cartesian space to its Tate sphere: $$ \mathbb{R}^n \longrightarrow \mathbb{R}^n/ (\mathbb{R}^n \setminus \{0\}) $$ We get such morphisms from, in particular, a choice of point $x \in \mathbb{R}^n$, namely induced from any affine map $\mathbb{R}^n \to \mathbb{R}^n$ which takes the origin to $x$. This is such that any other point in $\mathbb{R}^n$ goes to the base point of the Tate sphere, while the germ around $x$ maps to identically wrap around the Tate sphere. Now, sheafifying this construction, we see that general maps $\mathbb{R}^n \longrightarrow \mathbb{R}^n/ (\mathbb{R}^n \setminus \{0\})$ include those given by any configuration of points in $\mathbb{R}^n$, sending the germ around any point in the configuration to identically wrap the Tate sphere and sending all points not in the configuration to the base point. It feels like this construction should exhaust the set of such maps, though I don't see right now how to prove this. But if true, then the internal hom $Maps\big(\mathbb{R}^n, \mathbb{R}^n/ (\mathbb{R}^n \setminus \{0\}\big)$ should be close to being the unordered configuration space of points in $\mathbb{R}^n$, with its canonical smooth structure. (Or a bit fatter than that, including the choice of a germ of frames around each point.) Just thinking out loud here. Is anything like this discussed in the literature? (The algebraic geometers might substitute "Hilbert scheme" for "configuration space", throughout.)

   Late night thought:

   Do Tate spheres represent configuration spaces of points?

   For consider, in the smooth category (i.e. in the sheaf topos over the site of smooth manifolds), morphisms from Cartesian space to its Tate sphere:

   $$\mathbb{R}^n \longrightarrow \mathbb{R}^n/ (\mathbb{R}^n \setminus \{0\})$$

   We get such morphisms from, in particular, a choice of point $x \in \mathbb{R}^n$, namely induced from any affine map $\mathbb{R}^n \to \mathbb{R}^n$ which takes the origin to $x$. This is such that any other point in $\mathbb{R}^n$ goes to the base point of the Tate sphere, while the germ around $x$ maps to identically wrap around the Tate sphere.

   Now, sheafifying this construction, we see that general maps $\mathbb{R}^n \longrightarrow \mathbb{R}^n/ (\mathbb{R}^n \setminus \{0\})$ include those given by any configuration of points in $\mathbb{R}^n$, sending the germ around any point in the configuration to identically wrap the Tate sphere and sending all points not in the configuration to the base point.

   It feels like this construction should exhaust the set of such maps, though I don’t see right now how to prove this. But if true, then the internal hom $Maps\big(\mathbb{R}^n, \mathbb{R}^n/ (\mathbb{R}^n \setminus \{0\}\big)$ should be close to being the unordered configuration space of points in $\mathbb{R}^n$, with its canonical smooth structure. (Or a bit fatter than that, including the choice of a germ of frames around each point.)

   Just thinking out loud here. Is anything like this discussed in the literature? (The algebraic geometers might substitute “Hilbert scheme” for “configuration space”, throughout.)

9. • CommentRowNumber9.
   • CommentAuthorRichard Williamson
   • CommentTimeJul 29th 2020
   • PermaLink
   Author: Richard Williamson
   Format: MarkdownItexLinked to [[Tate twist]], both in the 'Related concepts' section and in the introduction. Added some brief remarks on the relationship. Is there a reason by the way to name this page 'Tate sphere' rather than 'Tate circle' this point? If we keep the name 'Tate sphere', we should add 'Tate circle' as a redirect I think. <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/diff/Tate+sphere/4">diff</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/Tate+sphere/4">v4</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Tate+sphere">current</a>

   Linked to Tate twist, both in the ’Related concepts’ section and in the introduction. Added some brief remarks on the relationship.

   Is there a reason by the way to name this page ’Tate sphere’ rather than ’Tate circle’ this point? If we keep the name ’Tate sphere’, we should add ’Tate circle’ as a redirect I think.

   diff, v4, current

10. • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 30th 2020
    • PermaLink
    Author: Urs
    Format: MarkdownItexThe Tate circle is $\mathbb{A}^1 \setminus \{0\}$. The Tate sphere is $\mathbb{A}^1/(\mathbb{A}^1 \setminus \{0\})$. (E.g. [Voevodsky 07](https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Tate+sphere#VRO07) p. 3, p. 13).

    The Tate circle is $\mathbb{A}^1 \setminus \{0\}$.

    The Tate sphere is $\mathbb{A}^1/(\mathbb{A}^1 \setminus \{0\})$.

    (E.g. Voevodsky 07 p. 3, p. 13).

11. • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 30th 2020
    • PermaLink
    Author: Urs
    Format: MarkdownItex(Some people do say "Tate sphere" for the Tate circle, but not conversely, as far as I am aware. Generally, it's common to call a circle a "1-sphere", but nobody calls the sphere a "2-circle".)

    (Some people do say “Tate sphere” for the Tate circle, but not conversely, as far as I am aware. Generally, it’s common to call a circle a “1-sphere”, but nobody calls the sphere a “2-circle”.)

12. • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorRichard Williamson
    • CommentTimeJul 30th 2020
    • (edited Jul 30th 2020)
    • PermaLink
    Author: Richard Williamson
    Format: MarkdownItexYes, after I wrote the above I reflected that Tate circle would be confusing. I'm not massively keen on Tate sphere, but I suppose the terminology comes from the fact that it is $\mathbb{A}^1$-weakly equivalent to $\mathbb{P}^1$, which over $\mathbb{C}$ is a sphere of course. A bit tenuous in general though, especially for this page where it is considered more generally than the setting of $\mathbb{A}^1$-homotopy theory.

    Yes, after I wrote the above I reflected that Tate circle would be confusing. I’m not massively keen on Tate sphere, but I suppose the terminology comes from the fact that it is $\mathbb{A}^1$-weakly equivalent to $\mathbb{P}^1$, which over $\mathbb{C}$ is a sphere of course. A bit tenuous in general though, especially for this page where it is considered more generally than the setting of $\mathbb{A}^1$-homotopy theory.

13. • CommentRowNumber13.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 30th 2020
    • PermaLink
    Author: Urs
    Format: MarkdownItexAnd what's the relation to Tate twists?

    And what’s the relation to Tate twists?

14. • CommentRowNumber14.
    • CommentAuthorRichard Williamson
    • CommentTimeJul 30th 2020
    • (edited Jul 30th 2020)
    • PermaLink
    Author: Richard Williamson
    Format: MarkdownItexI tried to roughly explain this in the entry. When forming the stable motivic homotopy category, we invert smashing with $\mathbb{P}^{1}$. The difference between doing this and inverting smashing with $S^{1}$ is exactly the ability to represent the Tate twist part of motivic cohomology theories. If you're looking for something precise, see for example Theorem 10.2 in Mazza, Voevodsky, Weibel: $H^{p,q}_{L}(X, \mathbb{Z} / n)$, the étale motivic cohomology of $X / k$ with coefficients in $\mathbb{Z} / n$ where $n$ is prime to the characteristic of $k$, is isomorphic $H^{p}_{et}(X, \mathbb{Z}/n(q))$, the étale cohomology of $X$ with coefficients in the $q$-th Tate twist of $\mathbb{Z}/n$. And to represent the $q$ part of motivic cohomology, i.e. the Tate twist part of étale cohomology with these coefficients, is exactly what inverting the Tate sphere (or in other words $\mathbb{G}_{m}$ as well as $\mathbb{S}^{1}$) rather than just $S^{1}$ allows. I am not convinced of the deep significance of the description $\mathbb{A}^{1} / \mathbb{G}_{m}$ motivically really. It is $\mathbb{P}^{1}$ that is really important, and the description $S^{1} \wedge \mathbb{G}_{m}$ is also important in $\mathbb{A}^{1}$-homotopy theory. As I wrote in the entry, it is essentially the same story for pure motives, taking again the fact that the Tate sphere is $\mathbb{P}^{1}$ as primary.

    I tried to roughly explain this in the entry. When forming the stable motivic homotopy category, we invert smashing with $\mathbb{P}^{1}$. The difference between doing this and inverting smashing with $S^{1}$ is exactly the ability to represent the Tate twist part of motivic cohomology theories. If you’re looking for something precise, see for example Theorem 10.2 in Mazza, Voevodsky, Weibel: $H^{p,q}_{L}(X, \mathbb{Z} / n)$, the étale motivic cohomology of $X / k$ with coefficients in $\mathbb{Z} / n$ where $n$ is prime to the characteristic of $k$, is isomorphic $H^{p}_{et}(X, \mathbb{Z}/n(q))$, the étale cohomology of $X$ with coefficients in the $q$-th Tate twist of $\mathbb{Z}/n$. And to represent the $q$ part of motivic cohomology, i.e. the Tate twist part of étale cohomology with these coefficients, is exactly what inverting the Tate sphere (or in other words $\mathbb{G}_{m}$ as well as $\mathbb{S}^{1}$) rather than just $S^{1}$ allows.

    I am not convinced of the deep significance of the description $\mathbb{A}^{1} / \mathbb{G}_{m}$ motivically really. It is $\mathbb{P}^{1}$ that is really important, and the description $S^{1} \wedge \mathbb{G}_{m}$ is also important in $\mathbb{A}^{1}$-homotopy theory.

    As I wrote in the entry, it is essentially the same story for pure motives, taking again the fact that the Tate sphere is $\mathbb{P}^{1}$ as primary.

15. • CommentRowNumber15.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeAug 2nd 2020
    • PermaLink
    Author: Urs
    Format: MarkdownItex> I tried to roughly explain this in the entry. In which entry? At _[[Tate sphere]]_ is just says > The Tate sphere gives rise to Tate twists The sentences that follow just say that the Tate sphere is inverted in motivic homotopy theory. That's why I was asking. > If you’re looking for something precise Since we are in the Idea section, something imprecise would be okay, possibly even desireable, but it should be contentful.

    I tried to roughly explain this in the entry.

    In which entry? At Tate sphere is just says

    The Tate sphere gives rise to Tate twists

    The sentences that follow just say that the Tate sphere is inverted in motivic homotopy theory.

    That’s why I was asking.

    If you’re looking for something precise

    Since we are in the Idea section, something imprecise would be okay, possibly even desireable, but it should be contentful.

16. • CommentRowNumber16.
    • CommentAuthorRichard Williamson
    • CommentTimeAug 2nd 2020
    • PermaLink
    Author: Richard Williamson
    Format: MarkdownItexAh, I see, reading this again I see that I did not make the link between my first sentence and the rest of the paragraph very clear; thanks! I have now rephrased things, I hope it is better now. Feel free to tweak/elaborate. <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/diff/Tate+sphere/5">diff</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/Tate+sphere/5">v5</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Tate+sphere">current</a>

    Ah, I see, reading this again I see that I did not make the link between my first sentence and the rest of the paragraph very clear; thanks! I have now rephrased things, I hope it is better now. Feel free to tweak/elaborate.

    diff, v5, current

17. • CommentRowNumber17.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeAug 3rd 2020
    • (edited Aug 3rd 2020)
    • PermaLink
    Author: Urs
    Format: MarkdownItexThe paragraph starting with > In formal constructions of categories of motives, one typically ‘inverts the Tate sphere’ is reasonable at this point, but the two paragraphs that follow would seem to better fit in an entry like _[[motivic homotopy theory]]_. To keep them here would mean to effectively merge the entry _[[Tate sphere]]_ back into the general discussion of [[motivic homotopy theory]] from which I had split it off for focus. I suggest you cut-and-paste this material to where it fits better.

    The paragraph starting with

    In formal constructions of categories of motives, one typically ‘inverts the Tate sphere’

    is reasonable at this point, but the two paragraphs that follow would seem to better fit in an entry like motivic homotopy theory. To keep them here would mean to effectively merge the entry Tate sphere back into the general discussion of motivic homotopy theory from which I had split it off for focus. I suggest you cut-and-paste this material to where it fits better.

18. • CommentRowNumber18.
    • CommentAuthorRichard Williamson
    • CommentTimeAug 3rd 2020
    • PermaLink
    Author: Richard Williamson
    Format: MarkdownItexThe idea was to explain that the inverting of the Tate sphere is not just about representing _motivic_ Tate twists, but ordinary ones in étale cohomology as well. But I've removed the two paragraphs now and added them to [[étale cohomology]]. <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/diff/Tate+sphere/7">diff</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/Tate+sphere/7">v7</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Tate+sphere">current</a>

    The idea was to explain that the inverting of the Tate sphere is not just about representing motivic Tate twists, but ordinary ones in étale cohomology as well. But I’ve removed the two paragraphs now and added them to étale cohomology.

    diff, v7, current