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

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 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 limit 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 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 subobject superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft type type-theory universal variational-calculus

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
    • CommentTimeMar 12th 2021

    starting something, to go with and rhyme on equivariant principal bundle. Not done yet, but need to save.

    v1, current

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMar 13th 2021

    Now some content in place, spelling out how

    • groups internal to GG-spaces are equivalently semidirect products with GG;

    • group actions internal to GG-spaces are equivalently actions of these semidirect product groups.

    All elementary and essentially trivial, but spelled out, hereby, nonetheless.

    diff, v8, current

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMar 14th 2021

    some last polishing. Now I have had enough of this.

    diff, v10, current

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeMar 14th 2021

    Strange that internalisation hasn’t been rolled out here before. Presumably it’s what follows from a HoTT rendition in equivariant context.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMar 14th 2021

    That’s certainly what I am really after behind the scenes:

    Question: What’s a twist in twisted equivariant (differential) AA-cohomology?

    Answer: it’s an AA-fiber \infty-bundle internal to a singular-cohesive \infty-topos. Of course.

    Question: What kind of topological bundles with bells-and-whistles present these under passage to shape?

    Answer: Principal bundles internal to GG-spaces – hence tomDieck69-bundles.

    But yeah, it is weird that it takes an undergrad-level entry equivariant group to fill a gap in the literature. Some 20th century maths has fallen into the 21st century here and needs to be cleaned up now ;-)

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeMar 15th 2021

    Presumably equivariant connection could be given a similar internalised treatment.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMar 15th 2021

    I won’t be editing that entry for the moment. But, yes, as in #5, differential cohomology in a singular-cohesive \infty-topos gives equivariant \infty-connections on equivariant \infty-bundles.

    (With the usual caveats: Abelian connections come out on the nose from a Hopkins-Singer style homotopy pullback along a character map, while non-abelian connections come out subject to more identifications, unless one intervenes by hand and uses more properties of a concrete ambient model.)

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJun 7th 2021

    Now finally turning to the abstract \infty-topos theoretic perspective on these matters:


    • H\mathbf{H} be an \infty-topos,

    • GGroups(H)G \in Groups(\mathbf{H})

    then Prop. 2.102 on p. 35 of our Proper Orbifold Cohomology shows that its homotopy quotient by its group-automorphism group is itself, canonically, a group object in the slice

    GAut Grp(G)Groups(H /Aut Grp(G)). G \!\sslash\! Aut_{Grp}(G) \;\in\; Groups \big( \mathbf{H}_{/\mathrm{Aut}_{Grp}(G)} \big) \,.

    I expect the converse is true:

    Conjecture. For KK a group in H\mathbf{H}, group objects in H /BK\mathbf{H}_{/\mathbf{B}K} are equivalent to group objects in H\mathbf{H} that are equipped with actions by K via group automorphisms.

    But I don’t have a proof of this converse statement yet.

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJun 7th 2021
    • (edited Jun 7th 2021)

    [ … ]

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJun 8th 2021

    I have put my thoughts so far into the Sandbox (involves tikz, so doesn’t render here).

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeSep 28th 2021

    If a GG-equivariant group Γ\Gamma acts on a GG-space XX (i.e. a group action internal to GG-spaces), then the action does not generally pass to naive quotients – but:

    The fixed locus Γ G\Gamma^G does canonically act on the naive quotient X/GX/G (essentially since reflexive coequalizers commute with products).

    Elementary as this is, I seem to have run into amusing example for this situation; now I am wondering if this should be thought of as an example of something that is relevant more generally.

    • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeSep 28th 2021
    • (edited Sep 28th 2021)

    How does this look in HoTT in terms of contexts BGB G, BΓB \Gamma, dependent product for fixed point, truncation of dependent sum for naive quotient, etc.?

    • CommentRowNumber13.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeSep 28th 2021

    Yeah, that’s the thing, it looks a little mixed:

    In singular-cohesive HTT it’s the combination of

    1. the geometric fixed locus operation Maps(BG,()) BGMaps\big( \prec \mathbf{B}G,\, \prec(-) \big)_{\prec \mathbf{B}G} on the group,

    2. the naive quotient modality <()\lt (-) on the object it acts on.

    It’s not something I would have thought of on abstract grounds, and I haven’t even tried to think about in which abstract generality this works.

    But now that I am seeing this one example I feel like there may be more to this (namely I am looking at the canonical 2\mathbb{Z}_2-equivariant action of SU(3)SU(3) on P 2\mathbb{C}P^2. Applying this construction and using the AKM-theorem makes this reduce to an SO(3)SO(3)-action on S 4S^4. Still need to check if it’s the canonical SO(3)SO(3)-action at that, but I guess it can’t be anything else…)