Not signed in (Sign In)

# Start a new discussion

## 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

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

• CommentRowNumber1.
• CommentAuthorUrs
• CommentTimeMay 5th 2010
• (edited May 5th 2010)

seeing Eric create diffeology I became annoyed by the poor state that the entry diffeological space was in. So I spent some minutes expanding and editing it. Still far from perfect, but a step in the right direction, I think.

(One day I should add details on how the various sites in use are equivalent to using CartSp)

• CommentRowNumber2.
• CommentAuthorUrs
• CommentTimeJan 5th 2011

I have expanded the Properties-section at diffeological space:

• added the statement and proof of the full and faithful embedding of smooth manifolds into diffeological spaces;

• split off a section of the properties of the ambient sheaf topos and how diffeological spaces sit inside there.

• CommentRowNumber3.
• CommentAuthorAndrew Stacey
• CommentTimeJan 5th 2011

I created Boman’s theorem and added the link to the embedding proof on diffeological space (also corrected a couple of minor typos in the vicinity).

• CommentRowNumber4.
• CommentAuthorUrs
• CommentTimeJan 5th 2011

I created Boman’s theorem

Thanks! I was scanning your articles for it, but didn’t see it. Then I thought about it and figured that it is easy to prove (isn’t it? one needs to show that for each higher partial derivatives of a function one can find a curve such that the composite’s $n$-fold total derivative involves as a summand the partial derivatives in question. But that’s obvious.)

I have added that to the list of theorems in the floating differential geometry TOC.

also corrected a couple of minor typos in the vicinity

Thanks! I found some more ;-)

• CommentRowNumber5.
• CommentAuthorAndrew Stacey
• CommentTimeJan 5th 2011

it is easy to prove

Not sure. I’ve not worked through the details myself. The proof in Kriegl and Michor is about a page long.

• CommentRowNumber6.
• CommentAuthorUrs
• CommentTimeJan 20th 2011
• (edited Jan 20th 2011)

At diffeological space I have added the remark that the statement proven there, that smooth manifolds embed fully faithfully in diffeological spaces, is a direct consequence of the fact that $CartSp$ is a dense sub-site of $Diff$ and then of the Yoneda lemma.

One can see that this is effectively what the previous proof checks in a pedestrian fashion, but it is maybe useful to have the general abstract version, too.

• CommentRowNumber7.
• CommentAuthorUrs
• CommentTimeJan 25th 2011
• (edited Jan 25th 2011)

I have added more of the original references to the References-section at diffeological space.

Andrew, when you have a second, maybe have a look to see if my attributions are precise.

• CommentRowNumber8.
• CommentAuthorUrs
• CommentTimeFeb 9th 2013

For the purpose of pointers at MO, I have expanded slightly at diffeological space to make it have this series of sub-sections on embeddings of categories:

• CommentRowNumber9.
• CommentAuthorUrs
• CommentTimeFeb 10th 2013

added also

(with just a pointer to a reference for the moment)

• CommentRowNumber10.
• CommentAuthorUrs
• CommentTimeFeb 13th 2013

added also the embedding of locally convex vector spaces by cor 3.14 in Kriegl-Michor

• CommentRowNumber11.
• CommentAuthorUrs
• CommentTimeMar 13th 2013
• (edited Mar 13th 2013)

Patrick Iglesias-Zemmour kindly pointed out to me by email that the latest version of this book Diffeology now contains, around exercise 72, a discussion of how Banach manifolds faithfully embed into diffeological spaces. So I have now added brief pointers to Banach manifold and to the relevant section of diffeological space. (This really deserves to be expanded on, but I don’t have the time.)

• CommentRowNumber12.
• CommentAuthorpiz
• CommentTimeMar 14th 2013
Hi There,

Urs pointed to me this forum/thread. So I will give some precisions about what he said above.

I look sometimes to the diffeological spaces item in nLab, to stay informed :-) Last time I discovered the article, posted by Urs, about Banach manifolds and the pointer to the 1977 Hain's paper, I didn't know about it. On the other hand, a few months ago, the referee of the AMS asked me to clarify, in the book Diffeology, the relationship between Banach manifolds and diffeology, what I did and that question became the exercise 72 of the book. Using Boman's theorem the solution of exercise takes a few lines. So, I was surprised to see Hain's paper so long, having a brief look inside it seemed to me that Hain proves first a kind of Boman theorem, in his paper, but Boman theorem is from 1967 if I don't mistake. So why Hain didn't use Boman theorem ? This is my question. Or I am wrong and I missed something ? But I have no time now to investigate this question, I'm doing something else. If someone is interested in and has time to look into it, he just sends me an email and I'll send him back a pdf of the last and final version of the book to check the exercise and compare with Hain's paper.

BTW, thanks again to a question of the referee of the book (this guy has been very helpful), I added an exercise related to Frolicher spaces and diffeology: with Yael Karshon we introduced the concept of reflexive diffeological space, it happens that this subcategory is isomorphic with the category of Frölicher spaces. It's the exercise 80. For the ones interested in that question about Frölicher/diffeology.

Best,

Patrick I-Z
piz@math.huji.ac.il
• CommentRowNumber13.
• CommentAuthorTobyBartels
• CommentTimeFeb 8th 2014

The entry diffeology didn't seem to serve any purpose, so now it redirects to diffeological space. (If somebody wants to revive it, its edit history is at diffeology > history.)

• CommentRowNumber14.
• CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
• CommentTimeMar 24th 2015

I’ve added a comment that Frölicher proved the full and faithful embedding of (paracompact) Fréchet spaces into diffeological spaces in 1981, and in fact I think he proved paracompact Fréchet manifolds also embed fully faithfully, but he has a funny extra condition to link with some functional/sequential notion of smoothness (see théorème 2 on this page)

• CommentRowNumber15.
• CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
• CommentTimeMar 24th 2015

On a different note, I’m not sure that convenient spaces do embed into diffeological spaces. My reading of corollary 3.14 at mentioned at #10 above is that it is just Boman’s theorem, and that the $c^\infty$ notion of smoothness agrees with the usual notion on cartesian spaces.

• CommentRowNumber16.
• CommentAuthorUrs
• CommentTimeMar 24th 2015

Thanks for further looking into this! This is useful.

• CommentRowNumber17.
• CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
• CommentTimeJun 15th 2015

Finally cleared this up. There is a faithful but non-full functor from lctvs into diffeological spaces, if we take MB-smooth maps as morphisms between the former, since there are non-continuous conveniently smooth maps. I still don’t know if diffeological isomorphisms are MB-smooth, though. I added to the page a reference to Gloecker’s counterexamples, and clarification about what is meant by smooth maps between lcvts.

• CommentRowNumber18.
• CommentAuthorUrs
• CommentTimeJun 13th 2018

added pointer to Patrick Iglesias-Zemmour’s lecture notes Iglesias-Zemmour 18

• CommentRowNumber19.
• CommentAuthorUrs
• CommentTimeJun 16th 2018
• (edited Jun 16th 2018)

I have considerably trimmed down the section Embedding of diffeological spaces into smooth sets. It used to contain a proof that $Sh(CartSp)$ is cohesive, and had the result announced in its title only hidden somewhere in that discussion. But the cohesion of smooth sets should instead be discussed there, and so I removed it here and instead included (a complete rewrite of) the proof there.

Here I only kept the actual statement that diffeological spaces are the concrete smooth sets, with the minimum indication of the proof that used to be here. Below that I added pointer to a completely (maybe pedantically) detailed proof, which is now at this Prop. in geometry of physics – smooth sets.

• CommentRowNumber20.
• CommentAuthorUrs
• CommentTime2 days ago

I forget if the following is known, and where it is proven:

The homotopy type of a diffeological space (D-topology) is equivalently its cohesive shape (when regarded as a concrete 0-truncated objects in the cohesive $\infty$-topos over smooth manifolds).

(?)

• CommentRowNumber21.
• CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
• CommentTime2 days ago
• (edited 2 days ago)

Re #20: Yes.

By Proposition 3.1 in https://arxiv.org/abs/1010.3336 we have a left adjoint functor Diff→Top that sends a diffeological space to its underlying topological space equipped with the D-topology.

This left adjoint functor is a left Quillen functor because it sends generating (acyclic) cofibrations in Diff to (acyclic) cofibrations in Top.

Thus, the functor Diff→Top is homotopy cocontinuous.

The cohesive shape is also homotopy cocontinuous.

These two cocontinuous functors take contractible values on R^n.

Hence, they are weakly equivalent.

• CommentRowNumber22.
• CommentAuthorUrs
• CommentTime2 days ago

Thanks!

But help me, you seem to be using one more bit of information that I am lacking.

Explicitly, I am asking about the functor

$DiffeologicalSpaces \hookrightarrow Sh(CartSp) \hookrightarrow Sh_\infty(CartSp) \overset{Shape}{\longrightarrow} \infty Groupoids$

whether it’s naturally equivalent to

$DiffeologicalSpaces \overset{D-topology}{\longrightarrow} TopologicalSpaces \overset{L_{whe}}{\longrightarrow} \infty Groupoids$

You seem to be appealing to a homotopical structure on diffeological spaces being compatible with the first of these functors?

• CommentRowNumber23.
• CommentAuthorUrs
• CommentTime2 days ago
• (edited 2 days ago)

[later edit: ah, no, I misread Prop. 3.10 in Christensen-Wu, as per the warning on the next page – it does not hold generally for diffeological spaces – so the following does not work]

Let me see:

From your theorem about shape via cohesive path ∞-groupoid it follows that the first functor in #22 is equivalently the one called $S^D$ (Def. 4.3) in

• J. Daniel Christensen, Enxin Wu, The homotopy theory of diffeological spaces (arXiv:1311.6394)

The second functor in #22 would be called $S\circ D$ there.

So in the notation of that article I am asking for validity/proof of

$S^D \;\overset{?}{\simeq}\; S \circ D \,.$

I don’t see exactly that statement in the article, but something close:

Theorem 4.11 together with Prop. 3.10 there says that the homotopy groups of the results of both functors agree assuming they are evaluated on a fibrant diffeological space $X_{fibr}$ (which is one whose smooth singular simpliciat set $S^D$ is Kan, Def. 4.8):

$\pi_n \circ S^D(X_{fibr}) \;\simeq\; \pi_n S \circ D(X_{fibr}) \,.$

This is two steps away from the previous statement:

• if this isomorphism of homotopy groups is/were induced by a morphism of simplicial sets, then it would constitute a weak homotopy equivalence. This is probably implicit in the proofs, I should chase through them.

• if the assumption of fibrancy were unnecessary, we’d be done. Now, this would again follow from your theorem of shape via path $\infty$-groupoids, IF we knew there is fibrant replacement for diffeological spaces in the sense of Christensen – but that they explicitly do not prove.

[edit: ah, looks like both these steps are filled in in H. Kihara, Model category of diffeological spaces (arXiv:1605.06794), in Theorem 1.4 there, using the proof starting p. 33]

• CommentRowNumber24.
• CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
• CommentTime1 day ago

Re #23: I would argue as follows.

The Kihara model structure on diffeological spaces is transferred via the smooth singular simplicial set functor Diff→sSet.

The Quillen model structure on topological spaces is transferred via the singular simplicial set functor Top→sSet.

Furthermore, the composition of left adjoints sSet→Diff→Top equals the left adjoint sSet→Top.

The left Quillen functors sSet→Diff and sSet→Top are Quillen equivalences.

Therefore, the left Quillen functor Diff→Top is a Quillen equivalence by the 2-out-of-3 property, hence a homotopy cocontinuous functor.

• CommentRowNumber25.
• CommentAuthorUrs
• CommentTime1 day ago

The Kihara model structure on diffeological spaces is transferred via the smooth singular simplicial set functor Diff→sSet.

But Kihara defines a variant of smooth singular simplicial sets, by using a variant diffeology on standard simplices, in order to enforce existence of horn fillers.

The singular simplicial complex that corresponds to cohesive shape, the one also considered in your concordance article, that’s instead the one that Christensen-Wu use (their Def. 4.3). Isn’t it?

But with this definition, their Theorem 4.10 together with their (counter-)examles of smooth $\pi_n$ differing from D-topological $\pi_n$ proves that the desired equivalence fails.

It seems to me.

• CommentRowNumber26.
• CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
• CommentTime1 day ago
• (edited 1 day ago)

But Kihara defines a variant of smooth singular simplicial sets, by using a variant diffeology on standard simplices, in order to enforce existence of horn fillers.

Yes, it looks like my memory of Kihara’s paper was not entirely correct.

So really we need the Christensen-Wu construction, which gives the same weak equivalences, but different cofibrations. They do not prove it is a model structure, however, this is basically what we do in our paper. In fact, in our paper, Dan, Pedro, and I prove precisely the necessary lemmas that Christensen and Wu are missing, see Section 4.c, in particular, Lemma 4.13 is precisely the missing part necessary to complete the construction of a model structure, as Christensen and Wu point out themselves in Remark 4.9 in their paper.

Also, Proposition 4.10 shows that two different geometric realization functors by Kihara and Christensen-Wu are weakly equivalent by constructing an explicit homotopy equivalence between them.

• CommentRowNumber27.
• CommentAuthorUrs
• CommentTime1 day ago

Okay, I’ll have another look at your article.

But do you agree that Christensen-Wu’s results prove that the equivalence $S^D \overset{?}{\simeq} S \circ D$ fails?

They prove

1. $\pi_n^D(X) \simeq \pi_n S^D(X)$ for every diffeological space $X$ (Theorem 4.11),

2. $\pi_n^D(X) \neq \pi_n(S \circ D(X))$ for some diffeological spaces $X$ (Example 3.12, 3.20)

So it follows that

• $S^D(X) \;\text{is not weakly equivalent to}\; S \circ D (X)$ for some diffeological spaces $X$.
• CommentRowNumber28.
• CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
• CommentTime1 day ago

For my own future reference,

• π_n^D is the nth homotopy group defined by mapping representable spheres into a diffeological space,

• π_n S D is the nth continuous homotopy group of the D-topology,

• π_n(S^D) is the nth simplicial homotopy group of the smooth singular simplicial set.

But do you agree that Christensen-Wu’s results prove that the equivalence S D≃?S∘DS^D \overset{?}{\simeq} S \circ D fails?

Yes, I obviously forgot to derive the D-topology functor, since not all diffeological spaces are cofibrant (in fact, in Example 4.29 they give the same example as in 3.20).

So I would say that the D-topology functor must be left derived in order for your statement to be true.

Note that Theorem 4.11 is stated for fibrant diffeological spaces.

However, my work with Dan and Pedro show that fibrancy is redundant, see 4.3 and 4.7.

• CommentRowNumber29.
• CommentAuthorUrs
• CommentTime1 day ago
• (edited 1 day ago)

Thanks for the comments!

Okay, you are pointing me to the conclusion in the last sentence of Remark 4.7 in arXiv:1912.10544… Ah, I see. That’s most useful.

Okay, I’ll try to get a feeling now for the cofibrant replacement of diffeological spaces, to see if this is of any use in my intended application (generalized orbifold cohomology).

If it is, I’ll want to state/quote as a proposition that $S\circ D((-)_{cof}) \simeq S^D(-)$. I’d be happy to cite you for this if you write it down somewhere.

• CommentRowNumber30.
• CommentAuthorUrs
• CommentTime1 day ago

Do you know if all smooth manifolds are Christensen-Wu cofibrant as diffeological spaces? (They leave this as a conjecture, p. 18.)

• CommentRowNumber31.
• CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
• CommentTime16 hours ago

Re #30: It is easy to prove that any smooth manifold is concordance equivalent to to a cofibrant diffeological space, namely, the realization of the simplicial set K underlying some smooth triangulation of M.

This is precisely Lemma 9.13 in my draft.

I believe this will suffice for your purposes, since the D-topology functor sends concordance equivalences to homotopy equivalences of topological spaces.

• CommentRowNumber32.
• CommentAuthorUrs
• CommentTime9 hours ago

Yes, I know that the cohesive shape of a smooth manifold is equivalent to its underlying (D-)topological homotopy type.

But it would be useful to know that smooth manifolds are actually Christensen-Wu cofibrant, so that a cofibrant replacement functor could be asked to preserve them. For if not, the homotopy types would be me made to work only at the expense of breaking the differential geometry of the core class of examples, and that would be besides the point.

Add your comments
• Please log in or leave your comment as a "guest post". If commenting as a "guest", please include your name in the message as a courtesy. Note: only certain categories allow guest posts.
• To produce a hyperlink to an nLab entry, simply put double square brackets around its name, e.g. [[category]]. To use (La)TeX mathematics in your post, make sure Markdown+Itex is selected below and put your mathematics between dollar signs as usual. Only a subset of the usual TeX math commands are accepted: see here for a list.

• (Help)