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

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 galois-theory 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 homology homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory itex 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 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 science set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory 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.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeMay 13th 2010
    • (edited May 14th 2010)

    In fact, there is a theorem by Danny Stevenson and David Roberts, extended a theorem by John Baez and Danny Stevenson that shows that large classes of principal oo-bundles, even, do have classifying topological spaces in this sense.

    Wow! I haven’t thought about this in a long time. I didn’t realise I had my name to such a theorem (not that I mind). Danny told me he’d send some stuff soon, but that was a few weeks ago (I don’t mind - he’s a busy man).

    Could anyone (Urs?) tell me what the theorem is? :D

    Edit: For historical completeness (and because I forgot to put it in earlier) the quote is from the section “…because they have automorphisms” in the page moduli space.

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 13th 2010
    • (edited May 13th 2010)

    Could anyone tell me (Urs?) what the theorem is?

    Under mild assumptions on your topological 2-group GG, there is a topological space G\mathcal{B}G such that for a sufficiently well behaved topological space XX, homotopy classes of continuous maps XGX \to \mathcal{B}G are in bijection with Cech cohomology with values in BG\mathbf{B}G on XX.

    Proven in that article by John and Danny. Back when they wrote this I kept talking about it with Danny, and he kept mentioning how some of the technical details in the proof relate to your thesis. I forget what exactly.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeMay 13th 2010

    Under mild assumptions on your topological 2-group G…

    oh, yes, I know that one. I’m not sure if my thesis still relates to what Danny thinks it does. We did do a bit of work on it together, but I changed direction a number of times. You’ll have to check with him if my name is still warranted on this result, because I’m not sure what the state of play is now.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 13th 2010

    You’ll have to check

    No David, sorry, I am busy. You’ll check. :-)

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeMay 13th 2010

    Yeah, it’s not a high priority. I didn’t mean to imply that you personally needed to do it. I’ll ask and report back.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 13th 2010
    • (edited May 13th 2010)

    But don’t hasten to sell yourself under value. Whatever the state of the art is now, on Danny’s side, your thoughts back then had an impact on this result, and I think it is right that the page mentions this.

    (By the way, I suppose we are talking about the page principal infinity-bundle??)

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 13th 2010
    • (edited May 13th 2010)

    Ah, by the way, I have been vaguely trying to think about the issue here in more abstract terms:

    in the language that I have learned to like, the situation here can be described as follows:

    we are in an (,1)(\infty,1)-topos such as that of Lie infinity-groupoids Sh (,1)(CartSp)Sh_{(\infty,1)}(CartSp). The key point is that it is a locally contractible (infinity,1)-topos, which means that we have a canonically defined geometric realization functor, namely

    Π:Sh (,1)(CartSp)Grpd\Pi : Sh_{(\infty,1)}(CartSp) \to \infty Grpd.

    So for XX any object (a manifold, say), GG any smooth nn-group and BG\mathbf{B}G its delooping, we have the nonabelian GG-cohomology of XX as

    H smooth(X,BG):=π 0H(X,BG) H_{smooth}(X,\mathbf{B}G) := \pi_0 \mathbf{H}(X, \mathbf{B}G)

    classifiyg smooth GG-principal \infty-bundles.

    But now we can apply Π\Pi. This sends the manifold XX to its underlying topological space (up to weak homotopy equivalence) and if BG\mathbf{B}G is given by a simplicial manifold or simplicial diffeological space, then Π\Pi sends that to the corresponding geometric realizaiton Π(BG)=G\Pi (\mathbf{B}G) = \mathcal{B}G as a simplicial topological space.

    So we get a map

    H smooth(X,BG)=π 0H(X,BG)π[X,G] H_{smooth}(X, \mathbf{B}G) = \pi_0 \mathbf{H}(X,\mathbf{B}G) \stackrel{\pi}{\to} [X, \mathcal{B}G]

    which is the image of Π\Pi on the homotopy categories.

    So the question that you, Danny and John looked at is, from this point of view: when is π 0Π\pi_0 \Pi – the image of Π\Pi on the homotopy category – full and faithful?

    Possibly this is just a weirdly abstract reformulation of the obvious, but I thought maybe if one looked at it from an large enough abstract distance like this, there’d be some general useful things to say about this.

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)