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.
   • CommentAuthornLab edit announcer
   • CommentTimeDec 22nd 2020
   • PermaLink
   Author: nLab edit announcer
   Format: MarkdownItexThe induced map most likely isn't a homeomorphism when $X, Y$ are locally compact Hausdorff. The original statement was in monograph by Postnikov without proof. Not only that, in the current form it couldn't possibly be true, since the map could lack to be bijective. For more details see here: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/3934265/adjunction-of-pointed-maps-is-a-homeomorphism . I've added a reference in the case when $X, Y$ are compact Hausdorff though. Adam <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/diff/exponential+law+for+spaces/13">diff</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/exponential+law+for+spaces/13">v13</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/exponential+law+for+spaces">current</a>

   The induced map most likely isn’t a homeomorphism when $X, Y$ are locally compact Hausdorff.

   The original statement was in monograph by Postnikov without proof.

   Not only that, in the current form it couldn’t possibly be true, since the map could lack to be bijective.

   For more details see here: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/3934265/adjunction-of-pointed-maps-is-a-homeomorphism .

   I’ve added a reference in the case when $X, Y$ are compact Hausdorff though.

   Adam

   diff, v13, current

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
   • CommentTimeDec 23rd 2020
   • PermaLink
   Author: Todd_Trimble
   Format: MarkdownItexThanks for the correction at the end, Adam (it was a simple oversight from whoever wrote that). I would have expected that the statement you are talking (this is in the context of pointed spaces and maps) would go through assuming $X$ is locally compact, but I'll have a closer look.

   Thanks for the correction at the end, Adam (it was a simple oversight from whoever wrote that). I would have expected that the statement you are talking (this is in the context of pointed spaces and maps) would go through assuming $X$ is locally compact, but I’ll have a closer look.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
   • CommentTimeDec 23rd 2020
   • (edited Dec 23rd 2020)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Todd_Trimble
   Format: MarkdownItexFollowing on #2, let me try to say a few things. According to [Cagliari](https://www.jstor.org/stable/2161774?seq=1), if $X$ is a pointed space, then $$X \wedge -: Top_\ast \to Top_\ast$$ preserves colimits provided that $X \times -: Top \to Top$ preserves colimits (now forgetting the basepoint of $X$). It is well-known that $X \times -: Top \to Top$ preserves colimits if $X$ is locally compact (the precise necessary and sufficient condition is that $X$ is core compact). Now $Top_\ast$ is [[topological functor|topological]] over $Set_\ast$. Since $Set_\ast$ is a [[total category]] (being for example [[monadic functor|monadic]] over $Set$), it would follow that $Top_\ast$ is as well. From that it would follow from that $X \wedge -: Top_\ast \to Top_\ast$, being cocontinuous, has a right adjoint $G$. We can calculate $G$ is at the underlying set-level: if we put $Y = \{0, 1\}$ with basepoint $1$, then $$Top_{\ast}(X, Z) \cong Top_\ast(X \wedge Y, Z) \cong Top_\ast(Y, G Z) \cong {|G Z|}$$ so that the points of $G Z$ may be identified with basepoint-preserving maps $X \to Z$. The topology on $G Z$ is of course uniquely determined from the natural isomorphism $$Top_\ast(X \wedge -, Z) \cong Top_\ast(-, G Z)$$ Let us denote the pointed space $G Z$ by $Map_\ast(X, Z)$. There is a question of whether we can lift the natural isomorphism of hom-sets $$Top_\ast(X \wedge Y, Z) \cong Top_\ast(Y, Map_\ast(X, Z)$$ to the spatial level, where we have $$Map_\ast(X \wedge Y, Z) \cong Map_\ast(Y, Map_\ast(X, Z)) \qquad (\ast)$$ The answer would be 'yes' if all three of $X, Y, X \wedge Y$ are locally compact -- this would be a simple Yoneda argument, together with associativity of smash product in the presence of the local compactness assumptions. I don't think the answer would necessarily be 'yes' if only $X, Y$ are locally compact: the smash product $X \wedge Y$ is likely only compactly generated. But if $X, Y$ are compact, it should be fine, since $X \wedge Y$ will again be compact. I don't believe Hausdorffness needs to enter the fray, although it's true that the smash product of two compact Hausdorff spaces is again compact Hausdorff, because the equivalence relation on $X \times Y$ needed to form the quotient $X \times Y \to X \wedge Y$ is a closed equivalence relation. Of course, a lot of this discussion is nudging us in the direction of working with a [[convenient category of topological spaces]] in the first place, such as some variant of compactly generated spaces, where the topologies can be probed by maps from compact spaces. Over at [[smash product]], some work of Elmendorf and Mandell is quoted which would assure the isomorphism $(\ast)$ in such a convenient setting.

   Following on #2, let me try to say a few things. According to Cagliari, if $X$ is a pointed space, then

   $$X \wedge -: Top_\ast \to Top_\ast$$

   preserves colimits provided that $X \times -: Top \to Top$ preserves colimits (now forgetting the basepoint of $X$). It is well-known that $X \times -: Top \to Top$ preserves colimits if $X$ is locally compact (the precise necessary and sufficient condition is that $X$ is core compact). Now $Top_\ast$ is topological over $Set_\ast$. Since $Set_\ast$ is a total category (being for example monadic over $Set$), it would follow that $Top_\ast$ is as well. From that it would follow from that $X \wedge -: Top_\ast \to Top_\ast$, being cocontinuous, has a right adjoint $G$. We can calculate $G$ is at the underlying set-level: if we put $Y = \{0, 1\}$ with basepoint $1$, then

   $$Top_{\ast}(X, Z) \cong Top_\ast(X \wedge Y, Z) \cong Top_\ast(Y, G Z) \cong {|G Z|}$$

   so that the points of $G Z$ may be identified with basepoint-preserving maps $X \to Z$. The topology on $G Z$ is of course uniquely determined from the natural isomorphism

   $$Top_\ast(X \wedge -, Z) \cong Top_\ast(-, G Z)$$

   Let us denote the pointed space $G Z$ by $Map_\ast(X, Z)$. There is a question of whether we can lift the natural isomorphism of hom-sets

   $$Top_\ast(X \wedge Y, Z) \cong Top_\ast(Y, Map_\ast(X, Z)$$

   to the spatial level, where we have

   $$Map_\ast(X \wedge Y, Z) \cong Map_\ast(Y, Map_\ast(X, Z)) \qquad (\ast)$$

   The answer would be ’yes’ if all three of $X, Y, X \wedge Y$ are locally compact – this would be a simple Yoneda argument, together with associativity of smash product in the presence of the local compactness assumptions. I don’t think the answer would necessarily be ’yes’ if only $X, Y$ are locally compact: the smash product $X \wedge Y$ is likely only compactly generated. But if $X, Y$ are compact, it should be fine, since $X \wedge Y$ will again be compact. I don’t believe Hausdorffness needs to enter the fray, although it’s true that the smash product of two compact Hausdorff spaces is again compact Hausdorff, because the equivalence relation on $X \times Y$ needed to form the quotient $X \times Y \to X \wedge Y$ is a closed equivalence relation.

   Of course, a lot of this discussion is nudging us in the direction of working with a convenient category of topological spaces in the first place, such as some variant of compactly generated spaces, where the topologies can be probed by maps from compact spaces. Over at smash product, some work of Elmendorf and Mandell is quoted which would assure the isomorphism $(\ast)$ in such a convenient setting.

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
   • CommentTimeDec 23rd 2020
   • PermaLink
   Author: Todd_Trimble
   Format: MarkdownItexAll this being said, however, I think some more study is needed before making further edits to the page. In particular, I want to see how this material for the pointed space section jibes with the material of the previous section (which I'm a little rusty on myself).

   All this being said, however, I think some more study is needed before making further edits to the page. In particular, I want to see how this material for the pointed space section jibes with the material of the previous section (which I’m a little rusty on myself).

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeJun 19th 2022
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexadded these pointers: *** Discussion of exponential objects in [[slice categories]] of [[compactly generated topological spaces]] (towards [[locally cartesian closed category|local cartesian closure]]): * [[Peter I. Booth]], [[Ronnie Brown]], *Spaces of partial maps, fibred mapping spaces and the compact-open topology*, General Topology and its Applications **8** 2 (1978) 181-195 $[$<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-660X(78)90049-1">doi:10.1016/0016-660X(78)90049-1</a>$]$ * [[Peter I. Booth]], [[Ronnie Brown]], *On the application of fibred mapping spaces to exponential laws for bundles, ex-spaces and other categories of maps*, General Topology and its Applications **8** 2 (1978) 165-179 $[$<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-660X(78)90048-X">doi:10.1016/0016-660X(78)90048-X</a>$]$ * [[Peter May]], [[Johann Sigurdsson]], §1.3.7-§1.3.9 in: _[[Parametrized Homotopy Theory]]_, Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, vol. 132, AMS 2006 ([ISBN:978-0-8218-3922-5](https://bookstore.ams.org/surv-132), [arXiv:math/0411656](https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0411656), [pdf](http://www.math.uchicago.edu/~may/EXTHEORY/MaySig.pdf)) <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/diff/exponential+law+for+spaces/15">diff</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/exponential+law+for+spaces/15">v15</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/exponential+law+for+spaces">current</a>

   added these pointers:

   ---

   Discussion of exponential objects in slice categories of compactly generated topological spaces (towards local cartesian closure):

   • Peter I. Booth, Ronnie Brown, Spaces of partial maps, fibred mapping spaces and the compact-open topology, General Topology and its Applications 8 2 (1978) 181-195 $[$doi:10.1016/0016-660X(78)90049-1$]$

   • Peter I. Booth, Ronnie Brown, On the application of fibred mapping spaces to exponential laws for bundles, ex-spaces and other categories of maps, General Topology and its Applications 8 2 (1978) 165-179 $[$doi:10.1016/0016-660X(78)90048-X$]$

   • Peter May, Johann Sigurdsson, §1.3.7-§1.3.9 in: Parametrized Homotopy Theory, Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, vol. 132, AMS 2006 (ISBN:978-0-8218-3922-5, arXiv:math/0411656, pdf)

   diff, v15, current

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeJun 20th 2022
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexWhile I was at it, I have added missing data, links and formatting to the existing list of references, and organized by date of appearance. <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/diff/exponential+law+for+spaces/17">diff</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/exponential+law+for+spaces/17">v17</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/exponential+law+for+spaces">current</a>

   While I was at it, I have added missing data, links and formatting to the existing list of references, and organized by date of appearance.

   diff, v17, current